Skip to main content

Table 1 Overview according to change of the volume (∆V in µm3) in the luting gap after simulated 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years of artificial aging as well as per each simulated aging year (baseline—1st, 1st—2nd, 2nd – 3rd, 3rd—4th, 4th – 5th) with pairwise instrument comparisons. Also included are the width of the luting gap (GW in µm) at baseline and after 5 years of artificial aging

From: Long-term effect of simulated five years professional mechanical biofilm removal on the luting gap of ceramic restorations

Cementation type

Instrument

∆V1 in µm3 (mean ± SD)

∆V2 in µm3 (mean ± SD)

∆V3 in µm3 (mean ± SD)

∆V4 in µm3 (mean ± SD)

∆V5 in µm3 (mean ± SD)

Pairwise instrument comparison

p-value for ∆V1

p-value for ∆V2

p-value for ∆V3

p-value for ∆V4

p-value for ∆V5

CGIZ

LAPA-1

(n = 12)

-2.57 × 105

(6.75 × 105)

-9.47 × 105

(1.10 × 106)

-1.76 × 106

(2.02 × 106)

-3.12 × 106

(3.20 × 106)

-4.15 × 106

(3.25 × 106)

vs. LAPA-2

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

vs. RCP

1.000

0.705

0.188

0.024

0.075

vs. control

1.000

0.127

0.002

 < 0.001

 < .0.001

LAPA-2

(n = 13)

-4.20 × 105 (7.67 × 105)

-6.04 × 105

(1.12 × 106)

-1.58 × 106 (1.55 × 106)

-2.95 × 106 (2.21 × 106)

-3.00 × 106

(2.23 × 106)

vs. RCP

1.000

1.000

0.390

0.139

0.467

vs. control

1.000

0.862

0.007

0.002

 < 0.001

RCP

(n = 14)

-1.44 × 105

(5.24 × 105)

-3.52 × 105

(1.20 × 106)

-5.00 × 105

(8.18 × 105)

-9.02 × 105

(1.18 × 106)

-1.20 × 106

(1.31 × 106)

vs. control

1.000

1.000

0.840

0.811

0.144

control

(n = 13)

-1.93 × 104 (4.73 × 104)

2.11 × 105

(1.24 × 106)

3.40 × 105

(1.36 × 106)

4.19 × 105 (1.32 × 106)

3.44 × 105

(1.18 × 106)

 

CAB

LAPA-1

(n = 12)

-1.30 × 106

(2.13 × 106)

-3.36 × 106

(4.18 × 106)

-6.49 × 106

(4.75 × 106)

-9.41 × 106 (6.96 × 106)

-1.05 × 107

(7.20 × 106)

vs. LAPA-2

1.000

0.662

1.000

1.000

1.0000

vs. RCP

1.000

1.000

0.033

0.024

0.004

vs. control

0.425

0.018

0.001

 < 0.001

 < 0.001

LAPA-2

(n = 10)

-2.36 × 106 (2.83 × 106)

-5.24 × 106

(3.15 × 106)

-6.16 × 106 (3.96 × 106)

-6.18 × 106 (4.14 × 106)

-6.29 × 106

(4.24 × 106)

vs. RCP

0.742

0.038

0.030

0.139

0.147

vs. control

0.015

 < 0.001

0.001

0.002

0.001

RCP

(n = 12)

-6.03 × 105 (1.03 × 106)

-1.22 × 106

(1.55 × 106)

-1.09 × 106 (1.86 × 106)

-1.80 × 106

(2.09 × 106)

-1.86 × 106

(2.23 × 106)

vs. control

0.626

0.403

1.000

0.811

0.650

control

(n = 10)

4.89 × 104 (3.93 × 105)

-4.13 × 104

(3.98 × 105)

-9.22 × 104 (5.31 × 105)

-1.87 × 105 (6.90 × 105)

-2.46 × 105

(7.72 × 105)

 
  

∆V1st in µm3 (mean ± SD)

∆V2nd in µm3 (mean ± SD)

∆V3rd in µm3 (mean ± SD)

∆V4th in µm3 (mean ± SD)

∆V5th in µm3 (mean ± SD)

 

p-value for ∆V1st

p-value for ∆V2nd

p-value for ∆V3rd

p-value for ∆V4th

p-value for ∆V5th

CGIZ

LAPA-1

(n = 12)

-2.57 × 105

(6.75 × 105)

-6.90 × 105

(6.06 × 105)

-8.19 × 105

(1.38 × 106)

-1.35 × 106

(1.55 × 106)

-1.03 × 106

(7.45 × 105)

vs. LAPA-2

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

1.000

vs. RCP

1.000

1.000

1.000

0.763

0.371

vs. control

1.000

1.000

0.293

0.018

0.002

LAPA-2

(n = 13)

-4.20 × 105

(7.67 × 105)

-1.84 × 104

(6.02 × 105)

-9.81 × 105

(9.58 × 105)

-1.36 × 106

(1.28 × 106)

-5.11 × 104

(1.17 × 106)

vs. RCP

1.000

1.000

0.768

0.213

0.609

vs. control

1.000

1.000

0.172

0.002

0.003

RCP

(n = 14)

-1.44 × 105

(5.24 × 105)

-2.07 × 105

(8.62 × 105)

-1.48 × 105

(8.50 × 105)

-4.01 × 105

(5.89 × 105)

-3.00 × 105

(6.11 × 105)

vs. control

1.000

1.000

1.000

0.750

0.360

control

(n = 13)

-1.93 × 104

(4.73 × 105)

2.30 × 105

(1.04 × 106)

1.29 × 105 (7.41 × 105)

7.83 × 104 (5.12 × 105)

-7.42 × 104

(6.96 × 105)

 

CAB

LAPA-1

(n = 12)

-1.30 × 106

(2.13 × 106)

-2.05 × 106

(2.65 × 106)

-3.13 × 106

(3.01 × 106)

-2.91 × 106

(4.15 × 106)

-1.12 × 106

(1.86 × 106)

vs. LAPA-2

0.281

0.492

1.000

1.000

1.000

vs. RCP

1.000

1.000

0.050

0.029

0.006

vs. control

0.690

0.064

0.002

 < 0.001

 < 0.001

LAPA-2

(n = 10)

-2.36 × 106

(2.83 × 106)

-2.87 × 106

(2.27 × 106)

-9.17 × 105

(3.11 × 106)

-2.51 × 104 (1.17 × 106)

-1.09 × 105

(1.21 × 106)

vs. RCP

0.210

0.053

0.020

0.120

0.139

vs. control

0.004

 < 0.001

0.001

0.001

0.002

RCP

(n = 12)

-6.03 × 105

(10.3 × 106)

-6.21 × 105

(7.50 × 105)

1.24 × 105 (7.30 × 105)

-7.09 × 105

(9.89 × 105)

-5.97 × 104

(6.83 × 105)

vs. control

0.875

0.566

1.000

0.733

0.729

control

(n = 10)

4.89 × 104

(3.93 × 105)

-9.02 × 104

(1.72 × 105)

-5.08 × 104

(2.52 × 105)

-9.52 × 104

(2.39 × 105)

-5.85 × 104

(2.87 × 105)

 

Cementation type

Instrument

GW1 in µm (mean(SD))

 

GW5 in µm (mean(SD))

p-value for GW1 vs. GW5

Pairwise instrument comparison

p-value for gap1

 

p-value for gap5

CGIZ

LAPA-1

(n = 12)

76.19(18.70)

81.85(21.14)

0.004

vs. LAPA-2

1.000

1.000

vs. RCP

1.000

1.000

vs. control

1.000

1.000

LAPA-2

(n = 13)

74.00(22.36)

73.44(19.99)

0.753

vs. RCP

1.000

1.000

vs. control

1.000

1.000

RCP

(n = 14)

75.13(15.12)

78.04(18.85)

0.510

vs. control

1.000

1.000

control

(n = 13)

72.16(24.98)

78.01(23.36)

0.039

 

CAB

LAPA-1

(n = 12)

81.22(26.14)

 

90.04(28.28)

0.003

vs. LAPA-2

1.000

 

1.000

vs. RCP

1.000

1.000

vs. control

1.000

1.000

LAPA-2

(n = 10)

77.77(12.91)

76.99(24.58)

0.878

vs. RCP

1.000

1.000

vs. control

1.000

1.000

RCP

(n = 12)

74.92(18.11)

83.89(21.56)

0.005

vs. control

1.000

1.000

control

(n = 10)

76.84(21.32)

82.23(20.72)

0.203

 
  1. CAB Crown replicas with adhesive bonding, CGIZ Crown replicas with glass-ionomer cement, GW Gap width, LAPA-1 Air polishing with glycine powder, LAPA-2 Air polishing with erythritol powder, RCP Rubber cup with polishing paste, standard deviation (SD) and p-values of ∆V were calculated over an N of 96 for different crown surfaces