Does the Translucency of Novel Monolithic CAD/CAM Materials Affect Resin Cement Polymerization with Different Curing Modes?. Issue 2 (24th July 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Caprak, Yagmur Ozer; Turkoglu, Pinar; Akgungor, Gokhan
• Is Part Of: Journal of prosthodontics. Volume 28:Issue 2(2019)
• Page Start: e572
• Page End: e579
• Publication Date: 2018-07-24
• Subjects: CAD/CAM -- depth of cure -- monolithic ceramic -- translucency parameter -- Vickers hardness; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; Dental implants -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12956
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1059-941X

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: The translucency of CAD/CAM blocks influences the polymerization efficiency of resin cement used underneath. The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of the translucency parameters (TPs) of current monolithic CAD/CAM blocks on the microhardness of light‐cured or dual‐cured resin cement. Materials and Methods: 100 specimens were prepared from five types of CAD/CAM blocks (Mark II, Suprinity, Enamic, e.max, Ultimate), and their TP values were measured by spectrophotometry; 100 resin cement specimens (Duolink) were cured underneath five ceramic specimen groups by indirect LED light for 40 seconds with dual‐cure (with catalyst) and light‐cure (without catalyst) polymerization modes. Control group resin cement specimens (n = 20) were cured with both polymerization modes by direct LED light without any ceramic disc, making 120 resin cement specimens in total. The specimens were then stored in a dry environment for 24 hours before measurement of the polymerization depth with a digital micrometer. Vickers hardness measurements were performed at different resin cement sections. The results were statistically analyzed with 1‐, 2‐, and 3‐way ANOVA, Student's t ‐test and Tukey's HSD test (α = 0.05). Results: The highest TP values occurred for Suprinity and Ultimate, whereas the lowest TP value occurred for Enamic ( p < 0.01). The depth of cure and Vickers hardness values changed proportionally with TP value. In all specimens, dual polymerization provided higher depth of cure and Vickers hardness values than those obtained using light polymerization ( p < 0.01). In all specimens except Enamic, the hardness value differences between the sections were statistically insignificant ( p > 0.05). In Enamic, the hardness values for both polymerization types decreased significantly in the deeper sections ( p < 0.01). Conclusions: Lower depth of cure was observed as the amount of transmitted light decreased in the investigated materials. In clinical practice, light‐cured resin cements may result in inadequate polymerization for ceramic materials with lower TP values. Zirconia‐reinforced lithium silicate and nanoceramic resins may be reliable restorative materials for a restoration with both optimal esthetics and sufficient mechanical strength resulting from proper polymerization.