Microleakage of Porcelain and Composite Machined Crowns Cemented with Self-Adhesive or Conventional Resin Cement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Resistance of machined crowns to microleakage when cemented with new self-adhesive cements has not been fully investigated. This study evaluated microleakage of machined crowns milled from porcelain and composite blocks and bonded to teeth with self-adhesive and conventional resin cement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two freshly extracted premolars of similar shape and size were sterilized and mounted in resin blocks. Teeth received standard crown preparations with 1-mm circumferential shoulder finish line, flat occlusal surface reduced by 2 mm, and ideal angle of convergence. Prepared teeth were divided into two equal groups and assigned to either porcelain (Vita Mark II, Vident) or composite (Paradigm MZ100, 3M ESPE) blocks for crown fabrication. Optical impressions were captured for each tooth with the intraoral camera of a CEREC 3D machine. Crowns were designed and milled from both materials. Each group was then subdivided into two subgroups (n = 8) according to cement used (self-adhesive resin cement, RelyX Unicem, 3M ESPE or resin cement with self-etching adhesive, Panavia F 2.0, Kuraray). Following seating, a 5-kg weight was applied on the occlusal surface of the crown for 5 minutes. Specimens were then stored in water at 37°C for 24 hours. Specimens were thermocycled for 3000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C, then coated with nail varnish and immersed in a 2.0% basic red fuchsine dye solution for 24 hours. Teeth were then rinsed and sectioned mesiodistally and assessed under magnification for microleakage. A five-point scale was used to score degree of microleakage. Data were statistically analyzed with 2-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric test. RESULTS: Crown material had no significant effect on microleakage (p= 0.67); however, cement type had a significant effect (p < 0.0001), with Panavia F 2.0 resulting in lower microleakage scores than RelyX Unicem. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the self-adhesive cement, the resin cement with separate primer/bonding agent resulted in significantly lower microleakage scores, irrespective of crown material.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".