Influence of cement type, excess removal, and polishing on the cement joint

OBJECTIVES

To compare marginal gap width and depth with different cementation systems, excess removal, and after polishing.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

In total, 80 composite crowns were milled, divided into ten groups, and cemented on identical artificial teeth. Eight crowns per group were fixed with (i) zinc phosphate cement (ZnOPh), (ii) glass-ionomer cement (GIC), (iii) resin-reinforced glass-ionomer cement (GIC mod), (iv) dual-curing adhesive composite (Comp dual), or (v) dual-curing self-adhesive composite (Comp SE dual). Excess removal was performed with a scaler after brief light-cure (tack-cure), final light-cure, during rubber or gel phase or by wiping with foam pellet. Curing was completed in chemical, dark cure, or light-curing modus. The specimens were polished and stored in water (37°C). The margins were digitized using a 3D laser-scanning microscope (VK-X100 series, Keyence). The width and the depth of the marginal gap were measured at 10 points between the crown margin and the preparation margin.

RESULTS

The width after excess removal varied between 65.1 ± 15.7 µm (Comp dual, wipe, with polishing) and 208.6 ± 266.7 µm (Comp SE dual, dark cure, without polishing). The depth varied between 29.8 ± 22.2 µm (Comp dual, wipe, with polishing) and 89.5 ± 45.2 µm (Comp SE dual, dark cure, without polishing). The impact on gap width and depth was detected for fixation material, excess removal, and polishing.

CONCLUSION

The gap depth and width depend on the luting material and the mode of access removal. Polishing can improve the gap quality, especially for GIC and resin-based systems.