Comparison of Microleakage of Pedo Jacket Crowns and Stainless Steel Crowns Cemented With Different Cements

  • Mona Sohrabi Postgraduate Student, Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Sara Ghadimi Associate Professor, Laser Research Center of Dentistry, Dentistry Research Institute, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Bahman seraj Associate Professor, Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Dental Leakage, Primary Tooth, Dental Cements, Stainless Steel

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the microleakage of Pedo Jacket crowns compared to stainless steel crowns (SSCs) cemented with different cements.

Materials and Methods: In this in vitro experimental study, 80 primary molars were randomly divided into four groups of 20. Groups 1 and 2 were subjected to standard tooth preparation for SSC. Crowns in group 1 were cemented with glass ionomer (GI) and crowns in group 2 were cemented with resin modified glass ionomer (RMGI) cement. In groups 3 and 4, minimal tooth preparation was performed for Pedo Jacket crowns, and the crowns were cemented with RMGI and Panavia resin cement, respectively. Microleakage was measured in mesial and distal surfaces in micrometers, and the mean value for each tooth was calculated. One-way ANOVA was applied to compare the microleakage of the four groups.

Results: Group 3 (Pedo Jacket cemented with RMGI) showed the highest microleakage (1523.83±250.32 µm) with significant differences with the remaining three groups (P<0.001). Microleakage in group 4 (Pedo Jacket cemented with Panavia) was significantly lower than that in the other three groups (301.25±219.53 µm, P<0.001). Groups 1 (SSCs cemented with GI) and 2 (SSCs cemented with RMGI) were not significantly different in terms of microleakage (P=0.49), although group 1 showed slightly higher microleakage than group 2 (598.43±260.85 µm versus 500.25±124.74 µm).

Conclusion: Pedo Jacket crowns can serve as an acceptable esthetic alternative to SSCs if cemented with resin cements.

References

1. Seraj B, Shahrabi M, Motahari P, Ahmadi R, Ghadimi S, Mosharafian S, et al. Microleakage of stainless steel crowns placed on intact and extensively destroyed primary first molars: an in vitro study. Pediatr Dent. 2011 Nov-Dec; 33(7):525-8.
2. Prabhakar AR, Sridevi E, Raju OS, Satish V. Endodontic treatment of primary teeth using combination of antibacterial drugs: an in vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2008 Jan; 26 Suppl 1:S5-10.
3. Ahamed SS, Reddy VN, Krishnakumar R, Mohan MG, Sugumaran DK, Rao AP. Prevalence of early loss of primary teeth in 5-10-year-old school children in Chidambaram town. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012 Jan; 3(1):27-30.
4. Venkataraghavan K, Chan J, Karthik S. Polycarbonate crowns for primary teeth revisited: restorative options, technique and case reports. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2014 Apr-Jun; 32(2):156-9.
5. Beattie S, Taskonak B, Jones J, Chin J, Sanders B, Tomlin A, et al. Fracture resistance of 3 types of primary esthetic stainless steel crowns. J Can Dent Assoc. 2011; 77:b90.
6. Roberts C, Lee JY, Wright JT. Clinical evaluation of and parental satisfaction with resin-faced stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent. 2001 Jan-Feb; 23(1):28-31.
7. Waggoner WF. Restoring primary anterior teeth: updated for 2014. Pediatr Dent. 2015 Mar-Apr; 37(2):163-70.
8. Gupta M, Chen JW, Ontiveros JC. Veneer retention of preveneered primary stainless steel crowns after crimping. J Dent Child (Chic). 2008 Jan-Apr; 75(1):44-7.
9. Casamassimo PS. Pediatric Dentistry: Infancy Through Adolescence. St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier/Saunders, 2013:327-328.
10. Townsend JA, Knoell P, Yu Q, Zhang JF, Wang Y, Zhu H, et al. In vitro fracture resistance of three commercially available zirconia crowns for primary molars. Pediatr Dent. 2014 Sep-Oct; 36(5):125-9.
11. Leith R, O'Connell AC. A clinical study evaluating success of 2 commercially available preveneered primary molar stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent. 2011 Jul-Aug; 33(4):300-6.
12. MacLean JK, Champagne CE, Waggoner WF, Ditmyer MM, Casamassimo P. Clinical outcomes for primary anterior teeth treated with preveneered stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent. 2007 Sep-Oct; 29(5):377-81.
13. Castro A, Badr SB, El-Badrawy W, Kulkarni G. Clinical Performance of Pedo Jacket Crowns in Maxillary Anterior Primary Teeth. J Dent Child (Chic). 2016 Sep 15; 83(3):125-31.
14. Mosharrafian S, Heidari A, Rahbar P. Microleakage of Two Bulk Fill and One Conventional Composite in Class II Restorations of Primary Posterior Teeth. J Dent (Tehran). 2017 May; 14(3):123-131.
15. Erdemci ZY, Çehreli SB, Tirali RE. Hall versus conventional stainless steel crown techniques: in vitro investigation of marginal fit and microleakage using three different luting agents. Pediatr Dent. 2014 Jul-Aug; 36(4):286-90.
16. Yilmaz Y, Dalmis A, Gurbuz T, Simsek S. Retentive force and microleakage of stainless steel crowns cemented with three different luting agents. Dent Mater J. 2004 Dec; 23(4):577-84.
17. Medić V, Obradović-Đuričić K, Dodić S, Petrović R. In vitro evaluation of microleakage of various types of dental cements. Srp Arh Celok Lek. 2010 Mar-Apr; 138(3-4):143-9.
18. Shiflett K, White SN. Microleakage of cements for stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent. 1997 May-Jun; 19(4):262-6.
19. Memarpour M, Mesbahi M, Rezvani G, Rahimi M. Microleakage of adhesive and nonadhesive luting cements for stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent. 2011 Nov-Dec; 33(7):501-4.
Published
2019-01-20
How to Cite
1.
Sohrabi M, Ghadimi S, seraj B. Comparison of Microleakage of Pedo Jacket Crowns and Stainless Steel Crowns Cemented With Different Cements. Front Dent. 16(1):31-36.
Section
Original Article