Glass Ionomer Versus Self-adhesive Cement and the Clinical Performance of Zirconia Coping/Press-on Porcelain Crowns

• Autor(a) principal: Torres, C. R. G. [UNESP]
• Data de Publicação: 2021
• Outros Autores: Avila, D. M. S. [UNESP], Goncalves, L. L. [UNESP], Meirelles, L. C. F. [UNESP], Mailart, M. C. [UNESP], Di Nicolo, R. [UNESP], Borges, A. B. [UNESP]
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
• Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.2341/20-029-C; http://hdl.handle.net/11449/218723

Objective: This split-mouth clinical study investigated the effect of luting cement on the performance of veneered yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP) zirconia crowns. Methods and Materials: A total of 60 crowns prepared with Y-TZP coping and press-on porcelain were made with a split-mouth design in 30 participants. The crowns were cemented either with glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Meron, Voco) or with self-adhesive resin cement (Bifix-SE, Voco). The restorations were assessed immediately after treatment and after 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months using the modified United States Public Health Service criteria. The parameters analyzed were retention, color stability, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, surface roughness, anatomic form, and secondary caries. The differences between the groups were analyzed by the Fisher exact test in each period of evaluation. The survival rate was analyzed with the Kaplan-Meier and logrank test (alpha=0.05). Results: After 48 months, 20 participants attended the recall. During the period of evaluation, 1 crown cemented with glass ionomer cement and 1 crown cemented with resin cement lost retention. Color match, marginal discoloration and adaptation, surface roughness, and anatomic form did not change in any of the periods evaluated, and no secondary caries was observed. No significant differences were found between the 2 luting cements for any of the clinical parameters analyzed, nor for the survival rates during the study. Conclusions: The type of cement did not influence the performance of the crowns after 48 months of clinical use. Both cements resulted in adequate retention rates, aesthetic and functional outcomes, and biological response.