Premium
Influence of luting cement on the clinical outcomes of Zirconia pediatric crowns: A 3‐year split‐mouth randomized controlled trial
Author(s) -
Azab Maha Moussa,
Moheb Dalia Mohamed,
El Shahawy Osama Ibrahim,
Rashed Mervat AbdelMoniem
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
international journal of paediatric dentistry
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.183
H-Index - 62
eISSN - 1365-263X
pISSN - 0960-7439
DOI - 10.1111/ipd.12607
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , randomized controlled trial , cement , orthodontics , surgery , composite material , materials science
Abstract Background There is no scientific evidence supporting the choice of luting cement for cementation of zirconia crowns. Aim The purpose of this split‐mouth study was to compare the efficacy of using bioactive cement versus packable glass ionomer for cementation of posterior pediatric zirconia crowns. Design Fifty first mandibular primary molars were restored by zirconia crowns and were randomly divided to be luted with either (a) bioactive cement or (b) packable glass ionomer. Crowns’ retention, fracture, and gingival condition were evaluated at 1 week, and 1‐, 3‐, 6‐, 9‐, 12‐, 18‐, 24‐, and 36‐month intervals. Statistical analysis was carried out using Fisher's exact test, Kaplan‐Meier survival analysis, and Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results At 3‐ to 36‐month follow‐ups, there were statistically significant ( P = .009‐≤.001) less debonded crowns in packable glass ionomer group. There were no fractured crowns for either cements. There was no statistically significant difference between gingival index scores. Conclusions Packable glass ionomer is more retentive than bioactive cement when used for cementing zirconia pediatric crowns. Posterior zirconia pediatric crowns have high fracture resistance after 36 months of clinical performance, irrespective of luting cement. Luting cement for zirconia pediatric crowns has no apparent effect on gingival condition around crowns.