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.
Schlagwörter: adhesive, cementation, cement joint, cement types, composite, excess removal, marginal adaptation, marginal gap, polishing
