Sealing Properties of Three Luting Agents Used for Complete Cast Crowns: A Bacterial Leakage Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. E221-E228 ◽  
Author(s):  
O Zmener ◽  
CH Pameijer ◽  
SMH Rincon ◽  
SA Serrano ◽  
C Chaves

SUMMARY Objective To assess the sealing properties of three different luting materials used for cementation of full cast crowns on extracted human premolars. Methods Thirty noncarious human premolars were prepared in a standardized fashion for full cast crown restorations. All margins were placed in dentin. After impressions of the preparations, stone dies were fabricated on which copings were waxed, which were cast in type III alloy using standardized laboratory methods. Teeth were randomly assigned to three groups of 10 samples each (n=10), for which the following cements were used: 1) a resin-modified glass ionomer cement, Rely X Luting Plus (3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA); 2) a self-adhesive resin cement, Maxcem Elite (Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA); and 3) a glass ionomer cement, Ketac Cem (3M ESPE), the latter used as control. After cementation the samples were allowed to bench-set for 10 minutes, stored in water at 37°C, subjected to thermal cycling (2000×, between 5°C and 55°C, dwell time 35 seconds), and then stored in sterile phosphate buffer for seven days at 37°C. Subsequently, the occlusal surface was carefully reduced until the dentin was exposed. Finishing on wet sand paper removed the gold flash caused by grinding. After sterilization, the specimens were subjected to bacterial microleakage in a dual chamber apparatus for 60 days. Bacterial leakage was checked daily. Data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier survival test. Significant pairwise differences were analyzed using the log-rank test followed by Fisher exact test at a p<0.05 level of significance. Results Rely X Luting Plus showed the lowest microleakage scores, which statistically differed significantly from Maxcem Elite and Ketac Cem (p<0.05). Conclusions Rely X Luting Plus cement displayed significantly lower microleakage scores than a self-adhesive resin-based and conventional glass ionomer cement.

2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 309-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priya Subramaniam ◽  
Sapna Kondae ◽  
Kamal Kishore Gupta

The present study evaluated and compared the retentive strength of three luting cements. A total of forty five freshly extracted human primary molars were used in this study. The teeth were prepared to receive stainless steel crowns. They were then randomly divided into three groups, of fifteen teeth each, so as to receive the three different luting cements: conventional glass ionomer, resin modified glass ionomer and adhesive resin. The teeth were then stored in artificial saliva for twenty four hours. The retentive strength of the crowns was determined by using a specially designed Instron Universal Testing Machine (Model 1011). The data was statistically analyzed using ANOVA to evaluate retentive strength for each cement and Tukey test for pair wise comparison. It was concluded that retentive strength of adhesive resin cement and resin modified glass ionomer cement was significantly higher than that of the conventional glass ionomer cement.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
CRG Torres ◽  
DMS Ávila ◽  
LL Gonçalves ◽  
LCF Meirelles ◽  
MC Mailart ◽  
...  

SUMMARY Objective: This split-mouth clinical study investigated the effect of luting cement on the performance of veneered yttrium-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP) zirconia crowns. Methods and Materials: A total of 60 crowns prepared with Y-TZP coping and press-on porcelain were made with a split-mouth design in 30 participants. The crowns were cemented either with glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Meron, Voco) or with self-adhesive resin cement (Bifix-SE, Voco). The restorations were assessed immediately after treatment and after 6, 12, 24, 36, and 48 months using the modified United States Public Health Service criteria. The parameters analyzed were retention, color stability, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, surface roughness, anatomic form, and secondary caries. The differences between the groups were analyzed by the Fisher exact test in each period of evaluation. The survival rate was analyzed with the Kaplan–Meier and log-rank test (α=0.05). Results: After 48 months, 20 participants attended the recall. During the period of evaluation, 1 crown cemented with glass ionomer cement and 1 crown cemented with resin cement lost retention. Color match, marginal discoloration and adaptation, surface roughness, and anatomic form did not change in any of the periods evaluated, and no secondary caries was observed. No significant differences were found between the 2 luting cements for any of the clinical parameters analyzed, nor for the survival rates during the study. Conclusions: The type of cement did not influence the performance of the crowns after 48 months of clinical use. Both cements resulted in adequate retention rates, aesthetic and functional outcomes, and biological response.


2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 327-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deepak Mehta ◽  
Rohit M Shetty ◽  
Sonia Bhat ◽  
G Srivatsa ◽  
Y Bharath Shetty

ABSTRACT Aim The aim of this clinical study was to compare the postoperative sensitivity of abutment teeth restored with full coverage restorations retained with either conventional glassionomer cement (GIC) or resin cement. Materials and methods Fifty patients received full-coverage restorations on vital abutment teeth. Of these, 25 were cemented with GIC (GC Luting and Lining cement) and the other 25 using an adhesive resin cement (Smartcem 2). A randomized single blind study was undertaken for acquiring and evaluating the data. The teeth were examined before cementation, after cementation, 24 hours postcementation and 7 days postcementation. A visual analog scale was used to help the patient rate hypersensitivity. Results The statistical analysis of the result was done using students paired t-test. No statistically significant difference between Smartcem 2 and GIC was observed, when tested immediately and 24 hours after cementation. Statistically significant difference was seen between Smartcem 2 and GIC when tested 7 days postcementation with a significance level of 0.05. Higher postoperative sensitivity was seen with GIC when compared to resin cement. Conclusion In this study, the incidence of postoperative hypersensitivity after cementation of full-crown restorations with GIC and resin cement was similar when tested immediately. However, 7 days postcementation, abutments with GIC showed higher response compared to resin cement. Clinical significance A self-adhesive resin cement can be the material of choice for luting if presence of postoperative sensitivity is of prime consideration. In case GIC is being used, patient should be informed about the presence of sensitivity for a more prolonged period than with resin cement. How to cite this article Shetty RM, Bhat S, Mehta D, Srivatsa G, Shetty YB. Comparative Analysis of Postcementation Hypersensitivity with Glass Ionomer Cement and a Resin Cement: An in vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(3): 327-331.


2019 ◽  
pp. 61-67
Author(s):  
Xuan Anh Ngoc Ho ◽  
Anh Chi Phan ◽  
Toai Nguyen

Background: Class II restoration with zirconia inlay is concerned by numerous studies about the luting coupling between zirconia inlay and teeth. The present study was performed to evaluate the microleakage of Class II zirconia inlayusing two different luting agents and compare to direct restoration using bulk fill composite. Aims: To evaluate the microleakage of Class II restorations using three different techniques. Materials and methods: The study was performed in laboratory with three groups. Each of thirty extracted human teeth was prepared a class II cavity with the same dimensions, then these teeth were randomly divided into 3 groups restored by 3 different approaches. Group 1: zirconia inlay cemented with self-etch resin cement (Multilink N); Group 2: zirconia inlay cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Plus); Group 3: direct composite restoration using bulk fill composite(Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill). All restorations were subjected to thermal cycling (100 cycles 50C – 55 0C), then immersed to 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. The microleakage determined by the extent of dye penetration along the gingival wall was assessed using two methods: quantitative and semi-quantitative method. Results: Among three types of restorations, group 1 demonstrated the significantly lower rate of leakage compared to the others, while group 2 and 3 showed no significant difference. Conclusion: Zirconia inlay restoration cemented with self-etch resin cement has least microleakage degree when compare to class II zirconia inlay restoration cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and direct composite restoration using bulk fill composite. Key words: inlay, zirconia ceramic, class II restoration, microleakage.


2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camila Sabatini ◽  
Manthan Patel ◽  
Eric D'Silva

SUMMARY Objective To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of three self-adhesive resin cements and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) to different prosthodontic substrates. Materials and Methods The substrates base metal, noble metal, zirconia, ceramic, and resin composite were used for bonding with different cements (n=12). Specimens were placed in a bonding jig, which was filled with one of four cements (RelyX Unicem, Multilink Automix, Maxcem Elite, and FujiCEM Automix). Both light-polymerizing (LP) and self-polymerizing (SP) setting reactions were tested. Shear bond strength was measured at 15 minutes and 24 hours in a testing device at a test speed of 1 mm/min and expressed in MPa. A Student t-test and a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to evaluate differences between setting reactions, between testing times, and among cements irrespective of other factors. Generalized linear regression model and Tukey tests were used for multifactorial analysis. Results Significantly higher mean SBS were demonstrated for LP mode relative to SP mode (p<0.001) and for 24 hours relative to 15 minutes (p<0.001). Multifactorial analysis revealed that all factors (cement, substrate, and setting reaction) and all their interactions had a significant effect on the bond strength (p<0.001). Resin showed significantly higher SBS than other substrates when bonded to RelyX Unicem and Multilink Automix in LP mode (p<0.05). Overall, FujiCEM demonstrated significantly lower SBS than the three self-adhesive resin cements (p<0.05). Conclusions Overall, higher bond strengths were demonstrated for LP relative to SP mode, 24 hours relative to 15 minutes and self-adhesive resin cements compared to the RMGICs. Bond strengths also varied depending on the substrate, indicating that selection of luting cement should be partially dictated by the substrate and the setting reaction.


2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 548-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bandar M. A. Al–Makramani ◽  
Abdul A. A. Razak ◽  
Mohamed I. Abu–Hassan ◽  
Fuad A. Al–Sanabani ◽  
Fahad M. Albakri

BACKGROUND: The selection of the appropriate luting cement is a key factor for achieving a strong bond between prepared teeth and dental restorations.AIM: To evaluate the shear bond strength of Zinc phosphate cement Elite, glass ionomer cement Fuji I, resin-modified glass ionomer cement Fuji Plus and resin luting cement Panavia-F to Turkom-Cera all-ceramic material.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Turkom-Cera was used to form discs 10mm in diameter and 3 mm in thickness (n = 40). The ceramic discs were wet ground, air - particle abraded with 50 - μm aluminium oxide particles and randomly divided into four groups (n = 10). The luting cement was bonded to Turkom-Cera discs as per manufacturer instructions. The shear bond strengths were determined using the universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were analysed using the tests One Way ANOVA, the nonparametric Kruskal - Wallis test and Mann - Whitney Post hoc test.RESULTS: The shear bond strength of the Elite, Fuji I, Fuji Plus and Panavia F groups were: 0.92 ± 0.42, 2.04 ± 0.78, 4.37 ± 1.18, and 16.42 ± 3.38 MPa, respectively. There was the statistically significant difference between the four luting cement tested (p < 0.05).CONCLUSION: the phosphate-containing resin cement Panavia-F exhibited shear bond strength value significantly higher than all materials tested.


2003 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 193-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simonides Consani ◽  
Julie Guzela dos Santos ◽  
Lourenço Correr Sobrinho ◽  
Mário Alexandre Coelho Sinhoreti ◽  
Manoel Damião Sousa-Neto

The relationship between metallic cast crowns and tensile strength according to cement types submitted to thermocycling was studied. Seventy-two metallic crowns were cast with Verabond II Ni-Cr alloy and cemented in standardized preparations with 10º tapering. Three types of finishing line (45-degree chamfered, 20-degree bevel shoulder and right shoulder) were made with diamond burs on bovine teeth. Twenty-four metallic crowns in each group were randomly subdivided into three subgroups of 8 samples each according to the cement used: SS White zinc phosphate cement, Vitremer resin-modified glass ionomer cement, and Rely X resin cement and were submitted to thermocycling. Retention was evaluated according to tensile load required to displace the metallic cast crowns from tooth preparations with an Instron testing machine. ANOVA and Tukey's test showed a statistically significant difference among luting materials, with greater results for Rely X resin cement (24.9 kgf) followed by SS White zinc phosphate cement (13.3 kgf) and Vitremer resin-modified glass ionomer cement (10.1 kgf). The finishing line types did not influence the tensile resistance of the crowns fixed with the three cements. Increased tensile resistance of metallic crowns fixed on bovine teeth was obtained with resin cement, independent of the finishing line types.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document