KIM ET AL

INT CHIN J DENT

Marginal fitness and marginal leakage of fiber-reinforced composite
crowns depending upon luting cements
Sun-Jong Kim, DDS, MSD,a Sang-Wan Shin, DDS, MSD,a Kyu-Won Suh, DDS,
MSD,a and Jung-Suk Han, DDS, MSDba

Department of Prosthodontics, Korea University,
Prosthodontics, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea

andb

Departmentof

Purpose: The purpose of this in-vitro study is to compare the marginal fitness and microleakage of thefiber-reinforced composite crowns (Targis/Vectris) cemented with various luting agents after thermocycling
and dye penetration technique.
Materials and Methods: Fifty crowns were randomly assigned to 5 groups and cemented on the preparednatural extracted premolars with five different luting cements (Bistite II, Super-Bond, Variolink II, zinc
phosphate, and glass-ionomer cement). After 24 hours of cementation, all specimens were thermocycledthree hundred times in water baths of 5˚C and 55˚C with 60 s soaking time. The marginal gap and leakageof each specimen were measured and recorded by a digital measuring microscope.
Results: The mean values of marginal discrepancy were 46.78 µm for Bistite II, 56.25 µm for Variolink II,
56.78 µm for Super-Bond, 99.21 µm for Fuji-I glass-ionomer cement, and 109.49 µm for zinc phosphate
cement. There were significant differences in the marginal fit among three different cement systems (resin,glass ionomer, and zinc phosphate cement) (p<0.01). The less microleakage between tooth-cement andrestoration-cement interface was observed in the order of Variolink II, Bistite II, Super-Bond, glass-ionomer,and zinc phosphate.
Conclusion: Specimens luted with resin cements (Bistite II, Super-Bond, Variolink II) exhibited lessmarginal leakage and marginal discrepancy than those of conventional glass-ionomer and zinc phosphate
cement. (Int Chin J Dent 2002; 2: 33-47.)

INTRODUCTION
Due to an increase of esthetic demands, the development of various esthetic restorative materials has
been accelerated. As a result, both patients and practitioners have a wide choice of various esthetic
materials and have increased the usage of restorative and luting materials, composite resin and all ceramiccrowns. Among the characteristics of the composite resin, esthetic and physical property is outstanding.
However, because of its strength, hardness, and wear resistance, there is a limitation in using the composite
resin for a molar area.1-3 In addition, ceramic crowns break easily and make the opposite tooth worn out.
In order to improve the physical properties of composite resin, in the middle of 1990’s, the new material
called ceramic optimized polymer (‘Ceromer’ hereinafter) was developed and reported. It can be used for a

33

KIM ET AL

INT CHIN J DENT

molar area, by a virtue of the improvement of physical properties, to be fabricated indirectly and to containceramic fillers with a high level of density. Because of the impregnation of reinforced fibers in the resin
matrix, the fiber-reinforced composite (‘FRC’ hereinafter) has high strength and can be available for
esthetic restorations instead of metal restorations. It is also called glass fiber composite, fiber-reinforced
polyceramic composite, etc.4-8
As a second generation of the composite resin, which is a piece of important developments ofprosthodontics, the Ceromer and FRC have not only esthetic advantages, but also the resemblance of wear
and strength of natural tooth.6,9 And they have the shock absorption capability, in addition. Because of theadvantages above, the bruxism patients’ interest in the resin has been increasing as it was deemed as asuperstructure material of dental implants. Also, Ceromer and FRC are easy to be bonded and repaired on aorthodontic bracket, that are unseen advantages in other restorative materials.9
Loose and others10 compared the fracture strength between In-Ceram and Targis/Vectris.

Afterthermocycling and mechanical loading, the FRC showed significantly higher fracture strength than
In-Ceram does. According to the Tysowsky’s report,11 the Targis restoration was successfully completed
through Targis being luted with zinc phosphate or conventional glass-ionomer cement. During the test of“facing repair” of fiber-reinforced composite restoration, Rosentritt12 found out that the repair of fiber
reinforced composite can be attained through the usage of aluminum-oxide air-abrading pretreatment andsilanization. Although the advantages of physical properties and ease of manipulation were reported, thevitro studies and clinical researches on marginal fitness and marginal leakage have not been conducted as it
is a new material.
The marginal fit and marginal leakage of the dental restoration are important measurements of clinicalsuccess. Microleakage is defined as the passage of bacteria, chemical substances, molecules and ion fluids
between a tooth and its restoration.13

The absence of sealing at the restoration margin promotes

discoloration, adverse pulpal response, postoperative sensitivity and recurrent caries.14,15
penetration has been utilized by several investigators to assess the presence of marginal leakage.

The dye
16-18

The physical properties of luting cement change, following a special environment, oral cavity. That is, athermal expansion coefficient of tooth substances, cement, restoration and stress distribution in cement,
difference of film thickness, water absorption. For most luting agents, microleakage occurs at the interface
between a treated tooth and its cement. In a stressed situation, a weakest link breaks first, and White et al.19
indicated that the interface was the weakest link. They also found that the zinc phosphate cement caused agreater degree of microleakage than glass-ionomer and resin cements did. Tjan et al.20 found that margins
placed on dentin did not showed significantly greater microleakages than those on enamel. Gutzmann andothers21 reported that thermal changes and lapse of time after cementation had an effect on marginal
leakages of the composite resin restorations. And Bahaloo et al.22, and Retief23 reported that the use of acidetching technique and dental bonding agents showed an increase of the retention of restorations and areduction of marginal leakage.
Although there is no report on the marginal fitness of FRC restorations, porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM)

34

KIM ET AL

INT CHIN J DENT

crowns and all ceramic crowns have been studied. Faucher et al.24 reported on the marginal fitness of PFM
crowns in cervical margin forms. Schneider et al.25 reported on the marginal fitness of collarless-type PFM
crowns in various fabrication methods. Shoher et al.26 compared the marginal fitness of all ceramic crowns
and metal crowns. And Morris and Sorensen et al.27 studied the marginal fitness of all ceramic crowns,
collarless porcelain fused-to metal crowns and metal crowns. Freilich et al.28 recommended a roundshoulder or deep chamfer adding a ladder-type preparation on lingual or proximal surface, but a 0.5
mm-short chamfer margin is recommended recently.
There is no report suggesting the cementation of fiber reinforced composite resin restoration with zinc
phosphate or glass-ionomer cement, but, when considering a clinical variation, conventional cementation
above can be considered.

Also, the use of dual cured resin cement (Variolink, Ivoclar-Vivadent,

Liechtenstein), which is manufacturer’s recommendation, may require additional time and economic costs.
This study evaluated the marginal fitness and marginal leakage of zinc phosphate and glass-ionomer
cement that are used in the cementation of reinforced composite crown, and compared them with thosecemented with three resin cement systems (Bistite II, Super-Bond C&B, and Variolink II).

MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
Fifty non-carious human premolar teeth, which had been stored in saline since their extractions due toorthodontic considerations, were used in this study. The teeth were imbedded with a orthodontic clear resin(Ortho-jet resin, Lang, USA) and were randomly divided into five experimental groups of 10 teeth each.
Subsequently, we luted Targis/Vectris crowns with zinc phosphate cement (Mizzy, Inc, NJ, USA),glass-ionomer (Fuji I, G-C International, Tokyo, Japan), Bistite II (Tokuyama, Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan),Super-Bond C&B (Sun Medical, Corp., Shiga, Japan), and Variolink II (Ivoclar-Vivadent, Schaan,
Liechtenstein) as luting cements (Table 1).
Table 1. Luting cements used in this study.
Luting cements

Manufacturer

Bistite II

Tokuyama Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan

Super-Bond C&B

Sun Medical Corp., Shiga, Japan

Variolink II

Ivoclar-Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein

Zinc phosphate

Mizzy Inc., NJ, USA

Fuji I glass-ionomer

G-C International, Tokyo, Japan

35

KIM ET AL

INT CHIN J DENT

Tooth preparation and model fabrication
Each tooth was cleaned with a hand scaling instrument, rubber cup and slurry of pumice. The coronalportion of each tooth was prepared for a complete crown with nearly parallel walls and a deep chamfer
finish line by the use of diamond bur at a high speed, and by cooling with an air and water spray. As part of
the tooth preparation, a total of 50 impressions were made with polyvinylsiloxane (Examix G-C Corp.,
Tokyo, Japan), dies were made from Type IV dental stone (Silky-Rock, Whip Mix), with a powder/water
ratio of 50 mg/12 mL. The stone dies were divided into five groups. And each group was composed of 10
dies.
Targis-Vectris crown fabrication
The dies were coated with two layers of a die relief spacer and a Targis die separation solution, and then,were coated with a Targis base. Glue was used to coat the occlusal surface. Vectris was placed, for the
single crown, on the occlusal surface and slightly pressed with the carver, then cured on the Vectris VSI.
The removed Vectris from the die was placed into the model to make sure that it fitted, and was madesmooth with a carbide bur above 1 mm from the margin. Then, the inner surfaces of all crowns weremicroblasted with the 50 µm aluminum oxide and were steam cleaned. The inner surface of Vectris wascoated with a wetting agent to make sure that it fitted. A base was put on the margin. Each coated surface
was pre-cured with Targis Quick for 20 s. The surface was cleaned right after the curing with sponge tomake sure that the base had been evenly coated. After building Targis with the modeling instrument, eachsurface was pre-cured for 10 s with Targis Quick. For the final step, all surfaces were evenly coated with
Targis Gel and were cured for 25 minutes with the Targis power.
Measurement of marginal fitness before cementation
After the try-ins of fifty restorations without any cement, the marginal fit of each restoration was
examined at a x50 digital microscope (Nikon MMII). Four vertical lines were inscribed onto the die
approximately 0.5 mm below the margin on the midmesial, midbuccal, midpalatal, middistal surfaces
through a 0.25 mm round carbide bur. These vertical lines were used to help orient the digital microscopefor a marginal discrepancy measurement (Fig. 1).
Cementation of Targis-Vectris crowns
Before any cementation, the tooth-preparations were lightly pumiced and thoroughly cleaned with water,
and then dried with compressed air. Each crown was then filled with a sufficient amount of cement toevenly cover the inner surfaces, and was seated on the tooth with a digital pressure. Afterwards, it was
sustained under a 3 kg static load for 10 minutes with a loading device (Saiki A-100, Tokyo, Japan).

36

KIM ET AL

INT CHIN J DENT

Fig. 1. Measuring point of marginal opening.
Group 1: Bistite group
The inner surfaces of 10 Targis/Vectris crowns were sandblasted. Also, Primer 1(A/B) of
which main component is phosphoric acid monomer (demineralization of tooth substance andenhancing bonding to tooth) was mixed with an equal amount and coated and then dried for
30 s. Primer 2 was coated and then, dried for 20 s. And, after these crowns were luted with
the Bisteite II resin cement, light-cured for 60 s.
Group 2: Super-Bond group
The inner surfaces of 10 Targis/Vectris crowns were sandblasted. Dentin surfaces weretreated with the Green activator (10% citric acid, 3% ferrous dichloride solution) for 10 s.
The crowns were luted with Super-Bond cement after washed and dried.

37

KIM ET AL

INT CHIN J DENTGroup 3: Variolink II group
The inner surfacse of 10 Targis/Vectris crowns were sandblasted, and were acid-etched with a
37% phosphoric acid. Dentin surfaces were treated and each inner surface was silanated with
Monobond. The crowns were luted with the Variolink II cement after covered with a dentin
adhesive coating and light-cured for 60 s.
Group 4: Zinc phosphate group
The inner surfaces of 10 Targis/Vectris crowns were sandblasted and were luted with a zinc
phosphate cement without any special tooth surface treatment.
Group 5: Glass-ionomer group
The inner surfaces of 10 Targis/Vectris crowns were sandblasted and were luted with aconventional glass-ionomer cement without any special tooth treatment.
Thermocycling
Each specimen was stored in saline for 24 hours before thermocycled. And then, each was subjected to
300 temperature cycles between 5˚C and 55˚C with a 1-minute dwell time in a water bath containing a
0.5% aqueous solution of a basic fuchsin dye.
Observation of marginal fitness after cementation
After the cementations of fifty restorations the marginal fit of each restoration was examined at x50
digital microscope (Nikon MMII). Four vertical lines were inscribed onto the die approximately 0.5 mm
below the margin on the midmesial, midbuccal, midpalatal, middistal surfaces through a 0.25 mm roundcarbide bur.

These vertical lines were used to help orient the digital microscope for the marginal

discrepancy measurement (Fig. 1).
Data for each marginal fitness were separately analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis ofvariance. The Duncan test was used for a comparison in the group. The clinical relevance of the results
was interpreted by the comparison with the acceptable marginal discrepancy of 120 µm as proposed by
McLean and von Fraunhofer.29
Observation of marginal leakage
The specimens were rinsed after thermocycled. And then, each tooth was sectioned 1) longitudinallythrough the center of the restoration 2) facioligually and mesiodistally, with the Isomet low-speed diamondsaw (Behler Ltd.). Each piece was polished by the #400 and #1,000 grit silicon carbide sandpapers. The
extent of the dye penetration at the facial, lingual, mesial, and distal margins was assessed along both thetooth-cement (T-C) and the restoration-cement (R-C) interfaces with a microscope at x100 magnification(Microscope Nikon MMII) and was scored according to the following scale (Fig. 2).
The marginal leakage for each crown at each interface was the average score of the dye penetration
recorded from the facial, lingual, mesial, and distal margins.
The data for each interface (T-C and R-C) were separately analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis one-way
analysis of variance. The Duncan test was used for the comparison in the group.

38

KIM ET AL

INT CHIN J DENT

0 – No microleakage
1 – Microleakage to one third of axial wall
2 – Microleakage to two thirds of axial wall
3 – Microleakage along full length of axial wall
4 – Microleakage over occlusal surface
Fig. 2. Diagram of criteria for scoring values of microleakage.

RESULTS
Marginal Fitness
1) Before cementation
The mean and standard deviation was 35.7 ± 7.3 µm and there was no significant difference amonggroups.
2) After cementation
The five luting cements yielded comparable marginal fits. They demonstrated marginal openings in therange of 46.7 to 109 µm. The mean values of the marginal fit were 46.78 µm for Bistite, 56.25 µm for
Variolink II, 56.78 µm for Super-Bond, 99.21 µm for glass-ionomer, and 109.49 µm for zinc phosphate.
The Bistite II cement had the lowest marginal discrepancies, and the zinc phosphate cement had thegreatest. The statistical analysis indicated significance in the marginal fit among the five groups. The raw
data, means, and standard deviation of the marginal fit values are listed in Table 2. The mean marginal
gaps are illustrated graphically in Fig. 3.
Marginal leakage
The marginal leakage scores, median, and range of the five test groups are presented in Table 3. The
mean values of tooth-cement interface and, restoration-cement interface were 0.225 and 0, respectively, for
Variolink II, 0.325 and 0, respectively for Bistite, 0.325 and 0.025 for Super-Bond, 0.675 and 0.025 forglass-ionomer, 1.125 and 0.15 for zinc phosphate. An analysis of the data for the T-C and R-C interfaces

39

KIM ET AL

INT CHIN J DENT

indicated a statistically significant difference at p<0.001. The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated that the crowns
cemented with the resin cement produced significantly less microleakage, compared with those luted withzinc phosphate and glass-ionomer.

ZPC: Zinc phosphate; GI: Glass-ionomer; S-B: Super-Bond; Bistite: Bistite II; V-L: Variolink II
Fig. 3. Marginal fitness (µm).
Table 2. The mean standard deviation of marginal fit of Targis-Vectris restorative
material in each different luting materials (µm).
Luting cement
Surface
Mean
SD
ZPC

Glass-ionomer

Bistite II

Super-Bond

Variolink II

Facial
MesialLingualDistalFacial
MesialLingualDistalFacial
MesialLingualDistalFacial
MesialLingualDistalFacial
MesialLingualDistal

122.6
106.2
105.1
104
87.05
108.1
109.7
91.95
39.4
45.3
51.35
51.05
49.45
60.85
60.05
56.75
51.71
58.69
58.2
56.4

40

36.37
40.6
38.79
32.31
20.55
37.62
35.39
34.05
8.14
15.47
11.76
13.36
18.64
18.57
23.68
17.43
12.96
10.37
14.41
18.92

KIM ET AL

INT CHIN J DENT

Table 3. Raw score, mean, range of microleakage.
ZPC

GI

Bistite II

Super-Bond

Variolink II

Specimennumber

T-C

R-C

T-C

R-C

T-C

R-C

T-C

R-C

T-C

R-C

1

1.5

0.25

1

0

0.25

0

0.25

0

0.25

0

2

0.5

0

0.25

0

0.25

0

0.25

0

0.25

0

3

1.5

0.5

0.25

0

0.75

0

0.5

0

0.25

0

4

1.75

0.25

1.5

0.25

0.75

0

0.25

0

0.25

0

5

1.25

0.15

0

0

0

0

0

0.25

0

0

6

0.25

0

0.25

0

0.25

0

0.75

0

0

0

7

0.75

0

0.25

0

0.5

0

0.25

0

0.5

0

8

1.5

0.25

0.75

0

0.5

0

0.25

0.25

0.25

0

9

1.5

0.25

0.75

0

0

0

0.25

0

0.25

0

10

1.5

0.25

0.25

0

0.5

0

0.25

0

0

0

Mean

1.12

0.15

0.68

0.025

0.325

0

0.325

0.025

0.225

0

Range

1.75

0.25

1.5

0.25

0.75

0

0.75

0.25

0.75

0

T-C: Tooth-cement interface; R-C: Restoration-cement interface.

DISCUSSION
Fiber-reinforced composites are resins strengthened by long, continuous fibers. Products are available aseither free fibers, which require incorporation of a resin, or pre-impregnated fibers. The concept of using
fiber-reinforced composites in dentistry is intuitively appealing and has been discussed in literatures formany years. However, it is only recently that these systems have gained general clinical acceptance.29 The
new fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) system, Targis-Vectris, which was introduced recently, is also
indicated for the use in single crowns and multiple-unit posterior restorations. Touati30 classified Targis asa second generation of laboratory composites together with ceramic polymer, polyglass and Ceromer.
Targis is easy to produce and is high in fracture strength and in elasticity, which made a tooth preparationeasy. In addition, it contains 80% of filler and during the process of fitting, the risk of fracture is reduced.
Marginal fitness is one of the most important criteria used in the clinical evaluation of fixed
restorations.31-34 Marginal fitness means the distance between the margin of a restoration and the margin ofa prepared abutment tooth. A poor marginal fitness causes microleakages and results in the hypersensitivityof tooth, dental plaque accumulation, gingivitis, dental caries, etc. However it is very hard to produce a
prosthesis, which is esthetically satisfying, has a good marginal fitness, and has a margin form that prevents
plaque accumulation.35
Deformations of model due to an incorrect impression taking, deformation during a laboratory procedure
and, a polymerization shrinkage are the factors that decrease the marginal fitness.36-37 The marginal fitnessof restoration depends on digital pressure during a cementation procedure, viscosity of cement, temperature,humidity and type of dentin adhesive.38 In FRC, like in all ceramic crowns, a marginal fitness variation canoccur according to a film thickness because it is pressed by only a digital pressure in order to avoid any

41

KIM ET AL

INT CHIN J DENT

fracture during such cementation.
Film thickness is dependent on the viscosity of mixed cement. A study39 showed that there could be adiscrepancy among Bistite II (10 µm), Variolink II (32 µm), Super-Bond (30-60 µm), and glass-ionomer(15-30 µm) based on the mixing methods. Ideally, the cement that has a low film thickness makes the goodseating of the prosthesis possible. So the cement with a lower film thickness is recommendable. However,though a low film thickness cement is used, high a film thickness can occur according to the shape of
prepared abutment tooth, cementation method, the viscosity of cement and the cement type. And it resultsin poor marginal adaptation and marginal leakage from solubility of cement.
Windeler and Palermo et al.40 reported that a high film thickness occurs when zinc phosphate is mixed ina traditional way. Wilson et al.41 observed that glass-ionomer showed over a 41 µm film thickness.
Fusayama and Iwamoto, Jorgensen42 reported that the correlation between compressive load and film
thickness during a cementation showed a hyperbola pattern that the critical point of the hyperbola was
about 30 µm and, when the cement was compressed by a static load of 25-30 µm, the increasing
compressive static load could hardly get a desired decrease in the film thickness, but the dynamic load candid.
It is known that an adhesive luting with a composite cement gives the best bond to Targis/Vectris and is,therefore, recommended.43,44 But, clinical situations are variable, a conventional cementation may beneeded. The zinc phosphate cement, which has been used in a clinical dentistry for over 90 years,45 is weakin chemical bonding. So the taper, length and surface area of the tooth preparation are critical to thesuccess.46

Several studies have demonstrated significant linear penetration of silver nitrate from theexternal margin along the restoration-tooth interface after a crown cementation.47,48 With a long termlaboratory observation and a clinical test, it is possible to do all ceramic crowns between the casting post,
inlay, onlay, cast gold crown and bridge, and tooth surface, amalgam, composite, glass-ionomer corebuild-ups. The glass-ionomer cement is adhesive to tooth’s enamel and dentin,49 and it has been used inclinical dentistry for a while because of its stability, matrix structure,50 fluoride release,51 and decrease in
marginal leakage.52 On the other hand, there is a limitation as in a long setting time and dehydration during
an initial setting.53,54
The presence of marginal discrepancy and microleakage in the restoration exposes the luting agent to theoral environment. The larger the marginal discrepancy and subsequent exposure of the dental luting agent
to oral fluids, the more rapid the rate of cement dissolution is. The resulted microleakage permits thepercolation of food, oral debris, and other substances that are potential irritants to the vital pulp.
The occurrence of microleakage with the zinc phosphate and glass-ionomer cements in this study was
expected.

A number of papers have found that the tensile, compressive, and shear strength of zinc

phosphate and glass-ionomer cements are lower than those of the resin cement.
Villaroel55 and others showed by comparing the microleakage under the cycling loading (100 N, 1.6 Hz,
2 million cycle) between the resin modified glass ionomer cement and the adhesive resin cement that themarginal leakage can be effectively prevented. Knox56 found no difference between with or without the42

KIM ET AL

INT CHIN J DENT

loading stage.

The tooth surface treated with a dentin bonding agent and micromechanical bonding

enhances the restorative material’s margin sealing effect.

Ivoclar Co. observed that the shear bondstrengths of dual cement and glass-ionomer cement used for the Targis/Vectris restorative material. The
shear bond strength of the dual cement was 20-30 MPa, and that of the light-curing glass-ionomer cement
was 15 MPa. Also, the adhesive bonding did not occur with the zinc phosphate cement and glass-ionomer
cement. Therefore, the manufacturer, Ivocar, recommends the adhesive luting cement.
A composite resin cement, which is outstanding in chemical and mechanical bonding strength isgenerally used for the luting of the fiber-reinforced composite resin. Variolink II, which was recommended
by its manufacturer, Bistite II resin-cement and , Super-Bond were used in this study. The Variolink II
cement, which belongs to the group of Bis-GMA + UDMA, is composed of three kinds of different
viscosities and five kinds of translucent shades. It is esthetic and continuously releases fluoride, which
prevents recurrent caries in a marginal area. In addition, since it is transparent, it fits with surrounding
teeth well. But, a clinical error may occur because the bonding process is complicated. The Bistite II
cement is an adhesive resin cement, which has a superior bonding strength and is easy to handle with. It
strongly bonds to tooth, metal, composite resin and porcelain by the match and the new composition ofadhesive Monomer MAC-10. Because it is a 2-paste, dual cure type, handling is easy. The Super-Bond
cement, which belongs to the group of the 4-META/MMA-TBB resin, is good for the pulp conservation
because it prevents a bacterial penetration through dentinal tubule and a microleakage by producing hybrid
layer and marginal sealing. But, it is hard to handle with, and the prosthodontic marginal discrepancies canbe happened by thick layers resulted from improper handling. In a special environment, such as an oralcavity, the physical properties of the resin cement can be changed. In other words, a marginal leakage may
occur because of the differences of coefficients in thermal expansion, polymerization shrinkage of resin
cement, stress distribution within cement, solubility, moisture absorption, and the effects on the retention of
prosthesis.
The experiments on the marginal leakage and marginal fitness have been usually done using metal orresin dies. However this study was done with natural teeth because the tooth treatments for the fivedifferent cements were not the same. But there was a limitation in simulating the oral environment exactly,
thus, the results of this study would not be able to be adapted to a clinical situation as a whole.
In this study marginal leakages occurred in all experimental groups. It suggested that it is caused by thediscrepancies among the cement, tooth substance and thermal expansion coefficient during thethermocycling.
There are disagreements as to what a clinically available limit is on the cervical margin according to theresearcher. Christensen57 reported that the clinically available limit in a cervical area is 34-119 µm in inlay
cases. McLean et al.29 surveyed 1,000 restorations for 5 years and reported that 120 µm was the clinicallyavailable limit. Assif58 reported that 140 µm was the clinically available limit. The results of this study
showed that the clinical available limits were 46.78 µm for Bistite, 56.25 µm for Variolink II, 56.78 µm forSuper-Bond, 99.21 µm for glass-ionomer, 109.49 µm for zinc phosphate and all the five cements showed

43

KIM ET AL

INT CHIN J DENT

lower values than those in any of the value of any of the aforementioned reports.
Tjan and Drdent et al.59 reported that the resin cement (Panavia EX) exhibited a substantially lesser
margnal leakage than those cemented with a zinc phosphate cement. Of the three resin cements in thisstudy, the dye-penetration-to-restoration-cement interface was not observed in Bistite II and Variolink II.
The results of this study showed that the dental cement has a crucial relationship with the fitness ofrestoration, and a low film thickness cement enables the good seating, and the cementation of prosthesis
should use a cement with, a proper strength, bonding strength and low film thickness.
Marginal leakage was low for the resin cements and it is thought that Variolink II, Bistite II, Super-Bond
can be used clinically with advantages. But marginal leakage occurred even for the resin cements afterthermocycling. It implies that the study for a precise laboratory technique and development for the resin
cement, which has a thermal expansion coefficient similar to natural tooth, and can sustain the marginal
sealing in spite of a stress change due to a thermal change, and can be used with ease, is needed.

CONCLUSIONSThis study evaluated and compared the marginal leakage and marginal gaps of Targis/Vectris crowns
cemented with various cements. Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions were madebased on the results.
1.

The mean values of the marginal fits were Bistite (46.78 µm), Variolink II (56.25 µm), Super-Bond(56.78 µm), glass-ionomer (99.21 µm), zinc phosphate (109.49 µm) each.

2.

The mean values of tooth-cement interface, restoration-cement interface increased Variolink II,
Bistite II, Super-Bond, glass-ionomer, zinc phosphate in order. Analysis of the data for T-C and R-Cinterfaces indicated a statistically significant difference at p<0.001.

3.

Crowns luted with resin cements (Bistite II, Super-Bond, Variolink II) exhibited less marginal leakage
and marginal gap than those luted with conventional glass-ionomer and zinc phosphate cements.

4.

The results indicated that, of all five luting systems, resin cements yielded excellent marginal fitness
and marginal leakage, on the contrary, glass-ionomer and zinc phosphate cements showed applicablemarginal sealing and that the cements can be used according to the cases and indications.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to express their sincere appreciation not only to Tokuyama Co. Ltd., Sun Medical Corp.,
Ivoclar-Vivadent for the products used in this study, but also to Dr. H.G. Kim for his assistance with thestatistical analysis.

REFERENCES
1. Trinkner TF, Roverts M. Aesthetic restoration with full-coverage porcelain veneers and a ceromer/fiber-reinforced
composite framework: A case report. Pract Periodont Aesthet Dent 1998; 10: 547-54.
2. Wollwage P. Veneering materials for crowns and bridges. Ivoclar Vivadent report. No3, May. 1996.
3. Berge M. Properties of prosthetic resin-veneer materials processed in commercial laboratories. Dent Mater 1989; 5:

44

KIM ET AL

INT CHIN J DENT

77-82.
4. Newton F Jr, Renzo CC. Ceromer/FRC technology: The future of biofunctional adhesive dentistry. Signature 1998; 2:
3-5.
5. William HL. Direct ceromer: Assuring restorative integrity with selective application of two viscosities. Signature 1998;
2: 5-8.
6. Trinkner T. Achieving functional restorations utilizing a new ceromer system. Signature 1997; 4: 12-7.
7. Didier D. Anatomical applications of a new direct ceromer. Signature 1997; 2: 3-7.
8. Gerhard Z. Fiber reinforced framework and restorations: A technical review. Signature 1998; 3: 3-6.
9. Goldberg AJ, Freilich MA. Fiber-reinforced composites. Dental Advisor 1998; 3: 15-9.
10. Loose M, Rosentritt M, Leibrook A, Behr M, Handel G. In vitro study of fracture strength and marginal adaptation offiber-reinforced composite versus all fixed partial dentures. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 1998; 6: 55-62.
11. Tysowsky GW. Conventional cementation technique for Targis restorations. Signature 1998; 5: 1-3.
12. Rosentritt M. Intraoral repair of fiber reinforced composite fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79: 393-8.
13. Bauer JF, Henson JL. Microleakage around dental restorations -a summarizing review. J Am Dent Assoc 1972; 87:
1349-57.
14. Crim GA. Marginal leakage of visible light-cured glass-ionomer restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 1993 ;69: 561-3.
15. Fuks AB, Holan G, Simon H, Lewinstein I. Microleakage of Class 2 glass-ionomer-silver restorations in primary molars.
Oper Dent 1992; 17: 62-9.
16. Jensen SE, Handelman SL. In vitro assessment of marginal leakage of six enamel sealants. J Prosthet Dent 1978; 39:
304-6.
17. White SN, Sorensen JA, Kang SK. Microleakage of new crown and fixed partial denture luting agents. J Prosthet Dent
1992; 67: 156-61.
18. Tjan AHL, Miller GD, Whang SB. The effect of thermal stress on the marginal seal of cast gold full crowns. J Am Dent
Assoc 1980; 100: 48-51.
19. Guzman HJ, Swartz ML, Phillips RW. Marginal leakage of dental restorations subjected to thermal stress. J Prosthet
Dent 1969; 21: 166-75.
20. Baharloo D, Moore DL. Effect of acid etching on marginal penetration of composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1974;
32: 152-6.
21. Retief DH. Effect of conditioning the enamel surface with phosphoric acid. J Dent Res 1973; 52: 333-41.
22. Faucher RR, Nicholls JI. Distortion related to margin design in porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations. J Prosthet Dent
1980; 43:149-55.
23. Schneider DM, Levi MS, Mori DF. Porcelain shoulder adaptation using direct refractory dies. J Prosthet Dent 1976; 36:
583-7.
24. Shoher I, Whiteman A. Evaluation of marginal adaptation of all ceramic crowns and metal ceramic crowns. J Prosthet
Dent 1992; 68: 869-73.
25. Sorensen JA, Okamoto SK, Seghi RR. Marginal fidelity of four methods of swaged metal matrix crown fabrication. J
Prosthet Dent 1992; 67: 162-73.
26. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Fisher DW. Preparation design and margin distortion in porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations
J Prosthet Dent 1973; 29: 276-84.
27. Miller IF, Belsky MW. The full shoulder preparation for periodontal health. Dent Clin North Am 1965; 83: 9-12.
28. Freilich MA, Karmaker AC, Burstone CJ. Development and clinical applications of a light polymerized fiber-reinforced
composite. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 80: 311-8.
29. McLean JW, von Fruanhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971; 131:
107-11.
30. Touati B, Aidan N. Second generation laboratory composite resins for indirect restorations. J Esthet Dent 1997; 9:108-18.
31. Walton JN, Gardiner FM, Agar JR. A survey of crown and fixed partial denture failures: Length of service and reasons45

KIM ET AL

INT CHIN J DENT

for replacement. J Prosthet Dent 1986; 56: 416-21.
32. Gardner FM. Margins of complete crowns. Literature review. J Prosthet Dent 1982; 48: 396-400.
33. Hunter AJ, Hunter AR. Gingival crown margin configurations: A review and discussion. Part 1 Discrepancies andconfigurations J Prosthet Dent 1990; 64: 636-42.
34. Morris HF. Veterans Administration Cooperative Studies Project No. 147. Part II: A new assessment system for rating
metal-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1986; 56: 546-51.
35. Donovan T, Prince J. An analysis of margin configurations for metal-ceramic crown. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 53: 153-7.
36. Faucher RR, Nicholls JI. Distortion related to margin design in pocelain-fused-to-metal restoration. J Prosthet Dent
1980; 43:149-55.
37. Belser UC, MacEntee MI, Richter WA. Fit of three porcelain-fused-to-metal marginal design in vivo: A SEM study. J
Prosthet Dent 1985; 53: 24-9.
38. White SN, Yu Z. Effect of seating force on film thickness of new adhesive luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68:
476-481.
39. Larsen TD, Jensen JR. Microleakage of composite resin and amalgam core material under complete cast crowns. J
Prosthet Dent 1980; 44: 40-4.
40. Windeler AS. Powder enrichment effects on film thickness of zinc phosphate cement. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 42:299-303.
41. Wilson AD, Crisp S, Lewis BG, McLean JW. Experimental luting agents based on the glass ionomer cements. Br Dent J
1977; 142: 117-22.
42. Jorgensen KD. Factors affecting the film thickness of zinc phosphate cements. Acta Odontol Scand 1960; 18: 479-90.
43. David SH. Search for metal-free restorations: A combination of ceramic optimized polymer and a fiber-reinforced
composite. Dental News in Science 1998; 9: 281-5.
44. Zanghellini G. Fiber-reinforced framework and ceromer restorations: Signature 1997; 4: 1-5.
45. Ames WB. A new oxyphosphate for crown setting. Dent Cosmos 1892; 34: 392-3.
46. Olio G, Jorgensen KD. The infuence of surface roughness on the retentive ability of two dental luting cements. J Oral
Rehabil 1978; 5: 377-89.
47. White SN, Yu Z, Tom JF, Sangsurasak S. In vivo microleakage of luting cements for cast crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1994;
71: 333-8.
48. White SN, Furuichi R, Kyomen SM. Microleakage through dentin after crown cementation. J Endod 1995; 21: 9-12.
49. Powis DR, Folleras T, Merson SA, Wilson AD. Improved adhesion of a glass-ionomer cement to dentin and enamel. J
Dent Res 1982; 61: 1416-22.
50. Crisps S. Lewis BG. Wilson AD. Glass-ionomer cement, chemistry of erosion. J Dent Res 1976; 55: 1032-41.
51. Meryon SD, Smith AJ. A comparison of fluoride release from three glass-ionomer cements and a polycaboxylate
cement. Int Endodont J 1984; 17: 16-24.
52. Hotz PR. Experimental secondary caries around amalgam, composite and glass-ionomer cement fillings in humanteeth. Helv Odont Acta 1979; 23: 9-39.
53. McLean LW, Wilson AD. The clinical development of the glass-ionomer cements. I. Formulation and properties. Aust
Dent J 1977; 22: 31-6.
54. Jordan RE, Suuki M, McLean DF. Light-cured glass ionomers. Esthetic Dent 1989; 1: 59-61.
55. Villarroel S. The effect of dynamic loading on the microleakage of fiber-reinforced composite crowns. J Dent Res 1999;
78: 302-8.
56. Knox E. In Vitro microleakage of Targis-Vectris crowns after cyclic loading. Signature 1998; 2: 301-5.
57. Christensen GJ. Marginal fit of gold inlay casting. J Prosthet Dent 1966; 16: 297-305.
58. Assif D, Rimer Y, Aviv I. The flow of zinc phosphate cement under a full-coverage restoration, its effect on marginal
adaptation according to the location of cement application. Quintessence Int 1987; 18: 765-74.
59. Tjan AHL, Dunn JR. Marginal leakage of cast gold crowns luted with an adhesive resin cement. J Prosthet Dent 1992;
67: 11-5.

46

KIM ET AL

INT CHIN J DENT

Reprint request to:
Dr. Sun-Jong Kim
Department of Prosthodontics, Korea University
80 Guro-dong, Guro-ku, Seoul, 152-703, Korea
FAX: +82-2-866-1499
E-mail: sjsj7777@hanmail.net
Received on October 11, 2001. Revised on November 12, 2001. Accepted on November 28, 2001.
Copyright ©2002 by the Editorial Council of the International Chinese Journal of Dentistry.

47