Retentive Strength of Luting Cements for Stainless Steel Crowns: An in vitro Study

2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 309-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Priya Subramaniam ◽  
Sapna Kondae ◽  
Kamal Kishore Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Luting Cements ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Ionomer Cement

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.

scholarly journals Effect of cement types on the tensile strength of metallic crowns submitted to thermocycling

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
Keyword(s):  
Tensile Strength ◽  
Zinc Phosphate ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Tensile Load ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

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.

Comparison of the Solubility of Conventional Luting Cements with that of the Polyacid Modified Composite Luting Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (12) ◽  
pp. 1016-1021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathew Thomas ◽  
Mohammed Mustafa ◽  
Reshma Karkera ◽  
AP Nirmal Raj ◽  
Lijo Isaac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Zinc Phosphate ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Luting Cements ◽  
Luting Cement ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Ionomer Cement

ABSTRACT Introduction This study was planned to find the solubility of the conventional luting cements in comparison with that of the polyacid-modified composite luting cement and recently introduced resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) with exposure to water at early stages of mixing. Materials and methods An in vitro study of the solubility of the following five commercially available luting cements, viz., glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Fuji I, GC), zinc phosphate (Elite 100, GC), polyacid-modified resin cement (PMCR) (Principle, Dentsply), polycarboxylate cement (PC) (Poly - F, Dentsply), RMGIC (Vitremer, 3M), was conducted. For each of these groups of cements, three resin holders were prepared containing two circular cavities of 5 mm diameter and 2 mm depth. All the cements to be studied were mixed in 30 seconds and then placed in the prepared cavities in the resin cement holder for 30 seconds. Results From all of the observed luting cements, PMCR cement had shown the lowest mean loss of substance at all immersion times and RMGIC showed the highest mean loss of substance at all immersion times in water from 2 to 8 minutes. The solubility of cements decreased by 38% for GIC, 33% for ZnPO4, 50% for PMCR, 29% for PC, and 17% for RMGIC. Conclusion The PMCR cement (Principle-Dentsply) had shown lowest solubility to water at the given time intervals of immersion. This was followed by PC, zinc phosphate, and GIC to various time intervals of immersion. How to cite this article Karkera R, Nirmal Raj AP, Isaac L, Mustafa M, Reddy RN, Thomas M. Comparison of the Solubility of Conventional Luting Cements with that of the Polyacid Modified Composite Luting Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(12):1016-1021.

scholarly journals In Vitro Tensile Strength of Luting Cements on Metallic Substrate

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iara A. Orsi ◽  
Fernando K. Varoli ◽  
Carlos H.P. Pieroni ◽  
Marly C.C.G. Ferreira ◽  
Eduardo Borie
Keyword(s):  
Tensile Strength ◽  
Zinc Phosphate ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Metallic Substrate ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Luting Cements ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The aim of this study was to determine the tensile strength of crowns cemented on metallic substrate with four different types of luting agents. Twenty human maxillary molars with similar diameters were selected and prepared to receive metallic core castings (Cu-Al). After cementation and preparation the cores were measured and the area of crown's portion was calculated. The teeth were divided into four groups based on the luting agent used to cement the crowns: zinc phosphate cement; glass ionomer cement; resin cement Rely X; and resin cement Panavia F. The teeth with the crowns cemented were subjected to thermocycling and later to the tensile strength test using universal testing machine with a load cell of 200 kgf and a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The load required to dislodge the crowns was recorded and converted to MPa/mm2. Data were subjected to Kruskal-Wallis analysis with a significance level of 1%. Panavia F showed significantly higher retention in core casts (3.067 MPa/mm2), when compared with the other cements. Rely X showed a mean retention value of 1.877 MPa/mm2 and the zinc phosphate cement with 1.155 MPa/mm2. Glass ionomer cement (0.884 MPa/mm2) exhibited the lowest tensile strength value. Crowns cemented with Panavia F on cast metallic posts and cores presented higher tensile strength. The glass ionomer cement showed the lowest tensile strength among all the cements studied.

Microleakage of class II restoration with zirconia inlay: An in vitro study

2019 ◽  
pp. 61-67
Author(s):  
Xuan Anh Ngoc Ho ◽  
Anh Chi Phan ◽  
Toai Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Group 1 ◽  
Composite Restoration

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.

scholarly journals In Vitro Shear Bond Strength of Three Self-adhesive Resin Cements and a Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Various Prosthodontic Substrates

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camila Sabatini ◽  
Manthan Patel ◽  
Eric D'Silva
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Setting Reaction ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Bond Strengths ◽  
Ionomer Cement

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.

scholarly journals Compressive strength of glass ionomer cements using different specimen dimensions

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 204-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Mallmann ◽  
Jane Clei Oliveira Ataíde ◽  
Rosa Amoedo ◽  
Paulo Vicente Rocha ◽  
Letícia Borges Jacques
Keyword(s):  
Compressive Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Strength Test ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Compressive Strength Test ◽  
Ionomer Cement

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the compressive strength of two glass ionomer cements, a conventional one (Vitro Fil® - DFL) and a resin-modified material (Vitro Fil LC® - DFL), using two test specimen dimensions: One with 6 mm in height and 4 mm in diameter and the other with 12 mm in height and 6 mm in diameter, according to the ISO 7489:1986 specification and the ANSI/ADA Specification No. 66 for Dental Glass Ionomer Cement, respectively. Ten specimens were fabricated with each material and for each size, in a total of 40 specimens. They were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and then subjected to a compressive strength test in a universal testing machine (EMIC), at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (5%). Mean compressive strength values (MPa) were: 54.00 ± 6.6 and 105.10 ± 17.3 for the 12 mm x 6 mm sample using Vitro Fil and Vitro Fil LC, respectively, and 46.00 ± 3.8 and 91.10 ± 8.2 for the 6 mm x 4 mm sample using Vitro Fil and Vitro Fil LC, respectively. The resin-modified glass ionomer cement obtained the best results, irrespective of specimen dimensions. For both glass ionomer materials, the 12 mm x 6 mm matrix led to higher compressive strength results than the 6 mm x 4 mm matrix. A higher variability in results was observed when the glass ionomer cements were used in the larger matrices.

scholarly journals Effect of Luting Cements On the Bond Strength to Turkom-Cera All-Ceramic Material

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
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Luting Cement ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
All Ceramic ◽  
Ionomer Cement

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.

scholarly journals Radiopacity Evaluation of Contemporary Luting Cements by Digitization of Images

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Maurício dos Santos Nunes Reis ◽  
Érica Gouveia Jorge ◽  
João Gustavo Rabelo Ribeiro ◽  
Ligia Antunes Pereira Pinelli ◽  
Filipe de Oliveira Abi-Rached ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Iso Standard ◽  
Luting Cements ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
One Way Anova ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective. The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacity of two conventional cements (Zinc Cement and Ketac Cem Easymix), one resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RelyX Luting 2) and six resin cements (Multilink, Bistite II DC, RelyX ARC, Fill Magic Dual Cement, Enforce and Panavia F) by digitization of images. Methods. Five disc-shaped specimens ( mm) were made for each material, according to ISO 4049. After setting of the cements, radiographs were made using occlusal films and a graduated aluminum stepwedge varying from 1.0 to 16 mm in thickness. The radiographs were digitized, and the radiopacity of the cements was compared with the aluminum stepwedge using the software VIXWIN-2000. Data (mmAl) were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (). Results. The Zinc Cement was the most radiopaque material tested (). The resin cements presented higher radiopacity () than the conventional (Ketac Cem Easymix) or resin-modified glass ionomer (RelyX Luting 2) cements, except for the Fill Magic Dual Cement and Enforce. The Multilink presented the highest radiopacity () among the resin cements. Conclusion. The glass ionomer-based cements (Ketac Cem Easymix and RelyX Luting 2) and the resin cements (Fill Magic Dual Cement and Enforce) showed lower radiopacity values than the minimum recommended by the ISO standard.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document