Effect of polyacrylic acid pretreatment on the microtensile bond strength of self-adhesive resin cement and resin modified glass ionomer cement to dentin

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
pp. 2707-2715
Author(s):  
Hadeel Farouk ◽  
Asmaa Harhash
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Acid Pretreatment ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Adhesive Resin Cement ◽  
Ionomer Cement

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.

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 Comparative Analysis of Postcementation Hypersensitivity with Glass Ionomer Cement and a Resin Cement: An in vivo Study

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 327-331 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deepak Mehta ◽  
Rohit M Shetty ◽  
Sonia Bhat ◽  
G Srivatsa ◽  
Y Bharath Shetty
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Abutment Teeth ◽  
Adhesive Resin Cement ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity ◽  
Ionomer Cement

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.

scholarly journals Effects of Ions-Releasing Restorative Materials on the Dentine Bonding Longevity of Modern Universal Adhesives after Load-Cycle and Prolonged Artificial Saliva Aging

Materials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 722 ◽  
Author(s):  
Salvatore Sauro ◽  
Irina Makeeva ◽  
Vicente Faus-Matoses ◽  
Federico Foschi ◽  
Massimo Giovarruscio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Load Cycle ◽  
Fractographic Analysis ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Universal Adhesives ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study aimed at evaluating the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) and fractographic features of dentine-bonded specimens created using universal adhesives applied in etch-and-rinse (ER) or self-etching (SE) mode in combination with modern ion-releasing resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC)-based materials after load cycling and artificial saliva aging. Two universal adhesives (FTB: Futurabond M+, VOCO, Germany; SCU: Scotchbond Universal, 3M Oral Care, USA) were used. Composite build-ups were made with conventional nano-filled composite (AURA, SDI, Australia), conventional resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Ionolux VOCO, Germany), or a (RMGIC)-based composite (ACTIVA, Pulpdent, USA). The specimens were divided in three groups and immersed in deionized water for 24 h, load-cycled (350,000 cycles; 3 Hz; 70 N), or load-cycled and cut into matchsticks and finally immersed for 8 months in artificial saliva (AS). The specimens were cut into matchsticks and tested for microtensile bond strength. The results were analyzed statistically using three-way ANOVA and Fisher’s LSD post hoc test (p < 0.05). Fractographic analysis was performed through stereomicroscope and FE-SEM. FTB showed no significant drop in bond strength after aging. Unlike the conventional composite, the two RMGIC-based materials caused no bond strength reduction in SCU after load-cycle aging and after prolonged aging (8 months). The SEM fractographic analysis showed severe degradation, especially with composite applied on dentine bonded with SCU in ER mode; such degradation was less evident with the two GIC-based materials. The dentine-bond longevity may be influenced by the composition rather than the mode of application (ER vs. SE) of the universal adhesives. Moreover, the choice of the restorative material may play an important role on the longevity of the finalrestoration. Indeed, bioactive GIC-based materials may contribute to maintain the bonding performance of simplified universal adhesives over time, especially when these bonding systems are applied in ER mode.

scholarly journals Influence of cement type on the fracture resistance of resin nanoceramic crowns over knife-edge margins: A pilot study

2021 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joana Guerreiro ◽  
◽  
Rafael Dias ◽  
José Carracho ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Knife Edge ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
Adhesive Resin Cement ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ionomer Cement

Objective: To evaluate the influence of the type of cement on the fracture resistance of full-contour resin nanoceramic crowns cemented over preparations with knife-edge margins. Methods: A right lower premolar typodont model was prepared with a 1.5-mm axial reduction, a 2.0-mm occlusal reduction, and a knife-edge vertical margin. An anatomical crown was designed from the digital scanning of the preparation using CAD/CAM software. Then, 20 crowns were milled from resin nanoceramic CAD/CAM blocks (Cerasmart270™) as well as a replica of the dental preparation in a cobalt-chrome alloy. The 20 crowns were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 crowns were cemented with self-adhesive resin cement (G-CEM LinkAce™) and group 2 crowns with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (FujiCEM™ 2). Subsequently, they were subjected to a loading test on an Instron universal testing machine until fracture occurred. The data were statistically analyzed using the parametric Student’s t-test (α=0.05). Results: The type of cement was shown to have a statistically significant effect on the crowns’ fracture resistance (p <0.001). Group 1 presented a mean of 1284.3±340.19 Newtons, much higher than the mean recorded in group 2, of 417.9±106.35 Newtons, with an increase of 207.3% in the fracture resistance after self-adhesive luting. Conclusions: Resin nanoceramic crowns cemented with self-adhesive resin cement showed considerably higher fracture resistance than those cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement.

scholarly journals In Vitro Bonding Performance of Modern Self-Adhesive Resin Cements and Conventional Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements to Prosthetic Substrates

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (22) ◽  
pp. 8157
Author(s):  
Encarna Piquer Maño ◽  
Rafael Marco Algarra ◽  
Amr Fawzy ◽  
Vicente C. B. Leitune ◽  
Fabrício M. Collares ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cements ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Resin Cements ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
Modern Self ◽  
Ionomer Cement

This study aimed at evaluating the shear bond strength (SBS) of modern self-adhesive resin cements and resin-modified glass ionomer cements applied to different prosthetic substrates. Zirconia, lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic and a noble metal alloy were used as bonding substrates. They were all sand-blasted with alumina, while LD was further etched with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid (10 s). A light-curing resin-modified glass ionomer cement (3M-GIC: Ketac Cem Plus) and a self-curing resin-modified glass ionomer cement (GC-GIC: FujiCEM 2) were compared to self-adhesive resin cements (PAN: Panavia SA Universal) and (3M-RES: Rely X Unicem 2). Ten specimens for each substrate were produced and up to five cylinders of each cement were bonded to each substrate. The shear bond strength (SBS) was evaluated after 24 h or after thermocycling (TC) aging (5000 cycles). The data was statistically analysed by two-way ANOVA and Student–Newman–Keuls test (α = 0.05). Failure modes were analysed through stereoscopic microscopy. The greatest SBS was attained with PAN, whilst 3M-GIC showed the lowest SBS and failed prevalently in adhesive mode. No difference in SBS was observed between GC-GIC and 3M-RES. After TC aging, all cements showed significant drop (p < 0.05) in SBS, but PAN showed the greatest SBS. Reliable bond strength to prosthetic substrates can be achieved with specific universal resin-luting cements and may be an alternative to glass ionomer cements when luting alloy substrates.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document