International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Hall's with SDF, Hall's, and Conventional Technique Using Different Luting Cements

Nidhi S Thakur, Parimala Tyagi, Shilpi Tiwari, Shikha Mali, Barkha Chhattani, Sanjana Bhargava

Keywords : Film alteration, Microleakage, Primary molars, Stainless steel crowns

Citation Information : Thakur NS, Tyagi P, Tiwari S, Mali S, Chhattani B, Bhargava S. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Hall's with SDF, Hall's, and Conventional Technique Using Different Luting Cements. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023; 16 (1):16-21.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2510

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 22-03-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

The most common pathological condition, dental caries when remain untreated which shows pulpal involvement and may lead to invasive treatment, such as crown placement followed by pulp therapy. Larger carious lesions on primary molars stainless steel crowns (SSCs) placement by means of conventional tooth preparation. The modern approach to managing carious lesions concentrates on using less invasive treatment techniques, with the focus being on biofilm change. One among such alternative method of managing the primary molars is the Hall's technique. Another most important factor for the survival of a crown is its sealing ability, in which luting cements, such as adhesive cements, have a crucial role as they help in providing a suitable marginal seal and thereby cause a reduction in the microleakage. Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) has proven anticariogenic activity in arresting carious lesions. Hence the aim was to evaluate and compare the microleakage of SSCs placed by Hall's technique, Hall's technique with SDF, and the conventional crown technique using different luting cements. A total of 60 primary first and second molars with occlusoproximal caries, which were initial and moderate in nature. The blocks were randomly divided into three groups, in which precontoured SSCs were applied by using either the Hall's technique or the conventional technique. After subjecting tothermocycling, the samples were examined under stereomicroscopic for microleakage evaluation. A few samples were randomly selected from each subgroup, and a scanning electron microscopic (SEM) examination was done. Highest values of microleakage were noted with Hall's technique resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIC) luting cement group. It can be concluded from the present study that the conventional technique was found to be superior over the Hall's technique with SDF and then by the Hall's group alone. SDF application beneath the Hall's crown appears to be promising approach for the reduction of microleakage.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Pérez-Hernández J, Aguilar-Díaz FC, Venegas-Lancón RD, et al. Effect of silver diamine fluoride on adhesion and microleakage of a pit and fissure sealant to tooth enamel: in vitro trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2018;19(6):411–416. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-018-0374-4
  2. Kale SS, Kakodkar P, Shetiya SH, et al. Dental caries prevalence among 5- to 15-year-old children from SEAR countries of WHO: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian J Dent Res 2019;30(6):937–947. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_654_17
  3. Alazmah A. Early Childhood Caries: A Review. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(8):732–737. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2116
  4. Ghaith B, Hussein I. The Hall technique in paediatric dentistry: a review of the literature and an “all Hall” case report with a-24 month follow up. Stoma Edu J 2017;4(3):208–217. DOI: 10.25241/stomaeduj.2017.4(3).art.6
  5. Erdemci ZY, Cehreli SB, Tirali RE. Hall versus conventional stainless steel crown techniques: in vitro investigation of marginal fit and microleakage using three different luting agents. Pediatr Dent 2014;36(4):286–290.
  6. Ludwig KH, Fontana M, Vinson LA, et al. The success of stainless steel crowns placed with the Hall technique: a retrospective study. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145(12):1248–1253. DOI: 10.14219/jada.2014.89
  7. Schwendicke F, Frencken J, Innes N (eds). Caries excavation: evolution of treating cavitated carious lesions. Monogr Oral Sci 2018;27:113–123. DOI: 10.1159/000487822
  8. Unnikrishnan S, Krishnamurthy NH, Nagarathna C. Marginal microleakage of glass ionomer cement with two different cavity conditioners on primary anterior teeth - an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2019;30(2):267–272. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_695_17
  9. Ali AL-HAJ, N S. Luting cements for preformed crowns of primary teeth: a clinical review. Int J Med Dent 2019;23(4):527–536.
  10. Jiang M, Mei ML, Wong MCM, et al. Effect of silver diamine fluoride solution application on the bond strength of dentine to adhesives and to glass ionomer cements: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health 2020;20(1):40. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-1030
  11. Seraj B, Shahrabi M, Motahari P, et al. Microleakage of stainless steel crowns placed on intact and extensively destroyed primary first molars: an in vitro study. Pediatr Dent 2011;33(7): 525–528.
  12. Ettinger RL, Kambhu PP, Asmussen CM, et al. An in vitro evaluation of the integrity of stainless steel crown margins cemented with different luting agents. Spec Care Dentist 1998;18(2):78–83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-4505.1998.tb00908.x
  13. Shiflett K, White SN. Microleakage of cements for stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 1997;19(4):262–266.
  14. Memarpour M, Mesbahi M, Rezvani G, et al. Microleakage of adhesive and nonadhesive luting cements for stainless steel crowns. Pediatr Dent 2011;33(7):501–504.
  15. Al-Haj Ali SN, Farah RI. In vitro comparison of microleakge between preformed metal crowns and aesthetic crowns of primary molars using different adhesive luting cements. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2018;19(6):387–392. DOI: 10.1007/s40368-018-0369-1
  16. Yilmaz Y, Dalmis A, Gurbuz T, et al. Retentive force and microleakage of stainless steel crowns cemented with three different luting agents. Dent Mater J 2004;23(4):577–584. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.23.577
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.