scholarly journals The influence of two different cements on remaining cement excess in cement-retained implant-supported zirconia crowns. An in vitro study

BDJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jazmin Hidalgo ◽  
Desirée Baghernejad ◽  
Anders Falk ◽  
Christel Larsson
Keyword(s):  
Dental Implant ◽  
Calcium Aluminate ◽  
Zinc Phosphate ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Zirconia Crowns ◽  
Aluminate Glass ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Abstract Aim To compare the amount of remaining cement excess after cementation of implant-supported zirconia crowns with zinc phosphate or calcium aluminate glass ionomer cement. MATERIALS AND METHODS Twenty zirconia crowns were cemented on dental implant abutments using a calcium aluminate glass ionomer cement (n = 10) and zinc phosphate cement (n = 10). After removal of cement excess, remaining cement excess were measured with pixel area calculation method and by weighing. Differences in amount of remaining cement excess were analyzed using Independent Samples t-Test. Level of significance was set at p = 0.05. Results Zinc phosphate cement had a significantly greater amount of remaining cement excess than calcium aluminate glass ionomer cement in terms of total number of pixels (p = 0.002) and amount in grams (p = 0.005). Conclusion The study suggests that the amount of remaining cement excess can be affected by the type of cement. Calcium aluminate glass ionomer cement may be a more suitable choice for cement-retained dental implant restorations, and possibly reduce the risk of complications related to cement excess such as peri-implant disease. Further studies are needed to verify the results from the present study.

scholarly journals Marginal Leakage of Endodontic Temporary Restorative Materials around Access Cavities Prepared with Pre-Endodontic Composite Build-Up: An In Vitro Study

Materials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 1700
Author(s):  
Atsushi Kameyama ◽  
Aoi Saito ◽  
Akiko Haruyama ◽  
Tomoaki Komada ◽  
Setsuko Sugiyama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Zinc Oxide ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Zinc Oxide Eugenol ◽  
Restorative Materials ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study aimed to examine the marginal seal between various commercial temporary restorative materials and exposed dentin/built-up composite. Sixty bovine incisors were cut above the cemento-enamel junction, and half of the dentin was removed to form a step, which was built up using flowable resin composite. The root canals were irrigated, filled with calcium hydroxide, and sealed using one of six temporary sealing materials (hydraulic temporary restorative material, temporary stopping material, zinc oxide eugenol cement, glass-ionomer cement, auto-cured resin-based temporary restorative material, and light-cured resin-based temporary restorative material) (n = 10 for each material). The samples were thermocycled 500 times and immersed in an aqueous solution of methylene blue. After 2 days, they were cut along the long axis of the tooth and the depth of dye penetration was measured at the dentin side and the built-up composite side. For the margins of the pre-endodontic resin composite build-up, the two resin-based temporary restorative materials showed excellent sealing. Hydraulic temporary restorative material had a moderate sealing effect, but the sealing effect of both zinc oxide eugenol cement and glass-ionomer cement was poorer.

Biocompatibility of a Conventional Glass Ionomer, Ceramic Reinforced Glass Ionomer, Giomer and Resin Composite to Fibroblasts: In vitro Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 403-406 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Tamilselvam ◽  
MJ Divyanand ◽  
P Neelakantan
Keyword(s):  
Cell Viability ◽  
Mtt Assay ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Time Periods ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: This aim of this study was at compare the fibroblast cytotoxicicty of four restorative materials - a conventional glass ionomer cement (GC Fuji Type II GIC), a ceramic reinforced glass ionomer cement (Amalgomer), a giomer (Beautifil II) and a resin composite (Filtek Z350) at three different time periods (24, 48 and 72 hours). Method: The succinyl dehydrogenase (MTT) assay was employed. Cylindrical specimens of each material (n=15) were prepared and stored in Dulbecco's modified Eagle medium, following which L929 fibroblasts were cultured in 96 well plates. After 24 hours of incubation, the MTT assay was performed to detect the cell viability. The method was repeated after 48 and 72 hours. The impact of materials and exposure times on cytotoxicity of fibroblasts was statistically analyzed using two way ANOVA (P=0.05). Results: Both time and material had an impact on cell viability, with giomer demonstrating the maximum cell viability at all time periods. The cell viability in the giomer group was significantly different from all other materials at 24 and 72 hours (P<0.05), while at 48 hours giomer was significantly different only with resin composite (P<0.05). Conclusions: Giomers showed better biocompatibility than conventional and ceramic reinforced glass ionomer cements and, resin composite. Ceramic reinforced glass ionomer demonstrated superior biocompatibility compared to conventional glass ionomer.

An in vitro study of the bond strength of light-cured glass ionomer cement in the bonding of orthodontic brackets

1996 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. A. Cook ◽  
F. Luther ◽  
C. C. Youngson
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document