Background: There is no scientific evidence supporting the choice of luting cement for cementation of zirconia crowns.
Aim: The purpose of this split-mouth study was to compare the efficacy of using bioactive cement versus packable glass ionomer for cementation of posterior pediatric zirconia crowns.
Design: Fifty first mandibular primary molars were restored by zirconia crowns and were randomly divided to be luted with either (a) bioactive cement or (b) packable glass ionomer. Crowns' retention, fracture, and gingival condition were evaluated at 1 week, and 1-, 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, 18-, 24-, and 36-month intervals. Statistical analysis was carried out using Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and Wilcoxon signed rank test.
Results: At 3- to 36-month follow-ups, there were statistically significant (P = .009-≤.001) less debonded crowns in packable glass ionomer group. There were no fractured crowns for either cements. There was no statistically significant difference between gingival index scores.
Conclusions: Packable glass ionomer is more retentive than bioactive cement when used for cementing zirconia pediatric crowns. Posterior zirconia pediatric crowns have high fracture resistance after 36 months of clinical performance, irrespective of luting cement. Luting cement for zirconia pediatric crowns has no apparent effect on gingival condition around crowns.
Keywords: bioactive cement; cementation; packable glass ionomer; pediatric crowns; zirconia.
© 2019 BSPD, IAPD and John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.