IADR 95th

54/75

-54-CERASMART2542 Microleakageof Lithium DisilicateCeramic Crowns vs. NanoCeramic CrownsPoster Presentation3:45 PM–5:00 PM Mar 24, 2017CC, First Floor Authors:Authors:VasilikiTsakalelli(Presenter)Tufts University School of Dental MedicineAhmad Alzayer, Tufts University School of Dental MedicineMarcelo Suzuki, Tufts University School of Dental MedicineMatthew Finkelman, Tufts University School of Dental MedicineALA ALI, Tufts University School of Dental MedicineAbstract: Abstract: Objectives: To evaluate and compare the microleakageof lithium disilicateceramics (IPS e.max, IvoclarVivadentAG, Liechtenstein) and CAD/CAM crowns made of nanoceramics (CERASMART, GC, Tokyo, Japan) on extracted teeth after thermocyclingtesting. It was hypothesized that lithium disilicatecrowns would have lower microleakagevalues compared to nanoceramic ones.Methods: Thirty extracted human third molar teeth were prepared in a consistent way to receive full-coverage CAD/CAM crowns. The specimens were scanned and designed using the CEREC system. The crowns were fabricated from IPS e.max CAD blocks and CERASMART CAD/CAM blocks using a CEREC milling machine. The specimens were randomly distributed into two groups. blocks using a CEREC milling machine. The specimens were randomly distributed into two groups. The crowns of both groups were attached using Rely X Ultimate resin cement. All crowns were subjected to 10,000 thermocyclesand then immersed in silver nitrate followed by using a photo-developer. Specimens were segmented buccolinguallyand the microleakagewas measured at 1.0 magnification using a stereomicroscope. Descriptive statistics were computed. For the percentage microleakagescale, the Mann-Whitney U test was used since the data were not normally distributed. For the ordinal microleakagescale, statistical significance between groups was judged by generalized estimating equations (GEE). SPSS version 22 and SAS 9.4 were used in the analysis and p-values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.in the analysis and p-values of less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.Results: The CERASMART group showed lower median microleakageat 5.9% (IQR=20.7) than the e.max group, which showed a median microleakageof 7.4% (IQR=13.9). No statistically significant difference between the groups was found (p = 0.806). For the ordinal data, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups (p = 0.605).Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, no proven evidence showed a statistically significant difference when comparing the microleakageof lithium disilicatecrowns and nanoceramic crowns.ceramic crowns.Disclosure Statement:The submitter must disclose the names of the organizations with which any author have a relationship, the nature of the relationship, and the clinical or research area involved. The following is submitted: NONEI have read the IADR policy on licensing.Signed by Dr. VasilikiTsakalelliReprinted with permission from the Journal of Dental Research, J Dent Res 96 (Spec Iss A):-54-abstract number 2542, https://iadr2017.zerista.com/event/member/330668, 2017