Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the microleakage of lithium disilicate veneers with finish lines placed cervically in different substrates (enamel, dentin, and resin composite) and bonded with light-cure (LC) and amine-free dual-cure (DC) resin cements. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-eight human maxillary central incisors were randomly assigned into three groups according to finish line substrate (n=16/group). Each group was subdivided randomly into two subgroups (n=8/subgroup) according to resin cement type: LC resin cement (Variolink Esthetic LC, Ivoclar Vivadent) and DC resin cement (Variolink Esthetic DC, Ivoclar Vivadent). All the specimens received lithium disilicate veneers (IPS e.max Press, Ivoclar Vivadent). After 5000 cycles of thermocycling, the microleakage was measured using the dye penetrating technique. Data were analyzed statistically using Scheirer Ray Hare test, Kruskal-Wallis H-test, and Mann-Whitney U-test. The level of significance was set at p ≤ .05. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference between different substrates in microleakage (p=.001), but there was no statistically significant difference between resin cements (p=.907), and there was no interaction between substrates and resin cements (p=.983). Microleakage was lesser when the finish line was placed at enamel and resin composite than at dentin. Similar leakage scores were observed with LC and DC resin cements. CONCLUSIONS: The finish line of ceramic veneer is suggested to be placed in enamel or good-quality resin composite restoration. Regarding microleakage and durability, LC and amine-free DC resin cements are suggested for ceramic veneer cementation. Key words:Different substrates, Dual-cure resin cement, Light-cure resin cement, Lithium disilicate veneers, Microleakage.