PURPOSE: In this in-vitro study, microleakage of all-ceramic crowns was evaluated at enamel and dentin margins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty maxillary central incisors were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 10). While buccal and palatal margins were placed on enamel, mesial and distal margins were placed below the cementoenamel junction. In groups 1 to 3, IPS Empress 2 crowns were luted with Variolink 2/Syntac Classic (group 1), Bifix DC/Solobond Plus (group 2) and Calibra/Prime ; Bond NT combinations (group 3), respectively. In the control group (group 4), porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns were luted with a zinc-phosphate cement. All specimens were subjected to 5000 thermocycles (at 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C; 30-s dwell time). After immersion in India ink for 48 h at 37 degrees C, the specimens were sectioned both buccolingually and mesiodistally. Each section was evaluated for microleakage under a stereomicroscope at 24X magnification. RESULTS: According to the Krukal-Wallis test, in all groups, there were significant differences in microleakage at the enamel margins (p = 0.001). Nevertheless, the margins finished in dentin showed no significant differences (p = 0.163). According to the Mann-Whitney U-test, statistically significant differences were observed in microleakage between groups 1 and 3 (p = 0.049), groups 1 and 4 (p = 0.001), groups 2 and 4 (p = 0.002), and between groups 3 and 4 (p = 0.045) at the enamel margin. In group 1, significantly greater microleakage was observed at the dentin margin compared to the enamel margin (p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The adhesive luting technique demonstrated an excellent ability to minimize microleakage of all-ceramic crowns at the enamel margins. Water-based dentin bonding systems showed less microleakage than the water-free acetone-based dentin bonding system at the enamel margin.
PURPOSE: In this in-vitro study, microleakage of all-ceramic crowns was evaluated at enamel and dentin margins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty maxillary central incisors were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 10). While buccal and palatal margins were placed on enamel, mesial and distal margins were placed below the cementoenamel junction. In groups 1 to 3, IPS Empress 2 crowns were luted with Variolink 2/Syntac Classic (group 1), Bifix DC/Solobond Plus (group 2) and Calibra/Prime ; Bond NT combinations (group 3), respectively. In the control group (group 4), porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns were luted with a zinc-phosphate cement. All specimens were subjected to 5000 thermocycles (at 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C; 30-s dwell time). After immersion in India ink for 48 h at 37 degrees C, the specimens were sectioned both buccolingually and mesiodistally. Each section was evaluated for microleakage under a stereomicroscope at 24X magnification. RESULTS: According to the Krukal-Wallis test, in all groups, there were significant differences in microleakage at the enamel margins (p = 0.001). Nevertheless, the margins finished in dentin showed no significant differences (p = 0.163). According to the Mann-Whitney U-test, statistically significant differences were observed in microleakage between groups 1 and 3 (p = 0.049), groups 1 and 4 (p = 0.001), groups 2 and 4 (p = 0.002), and between groups 3 and 4 (p = 0.045) at the enamel margin. In group 1, significantly greater microleakage was observed at the dentin margin compared to the enamel margin (p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: The adhesive luting technique demonstrated an excellent ability to minimize microleakage of all-ceramic crowns at the enamel margins. Water-based dentin bonding systems showed less microleakage than the water-free acetone-based dentin bonding system at the enamel margin.