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.

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.

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 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&lt;0.001) and for 24 hours relative to 15 minutes (p&lt;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&lt;0.001). Resin showed significantly higher SBS than other substrates when bonded to RelyX Unicem and Multilink Automix in LP mode (p&lt;0.05). Overall, FujiCEM demonstrated significantly lower SBS than the three self-adhesive resin cements (p&lt;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 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.

scholarly journals A comparison of the adhesive strength of zinc phosphate and self-adhesive resin cement as fiber post cementation materials

2017 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 226
Author(s):  
Setyawan Bonifacius ◽  
Deddy Firman ◽  
Hasna Djiab
Keyword(s):  
Adhesion Strength ◽  
Adhesive Strength ◽  
Zinc Phosphate ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Fiber Post ◽  
Adhesive Resin ◽  
Dental Practitioners ◽  
Adhesive Resin Cement ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Group 1

Background: The use of fiber post has become commonplace among dental practitioners due to its several advantages. In accordance with the intended use of post which provides retention for coronal restoration, a cement is used that can provide high quality adhesion. Conventional resin cement has long been adopted as a cementation material for consumer fiber post. However, allowing attachment fiber post failure due to errors in the cementing procedure leads to complications. Purpose: This study aimed to compare the adhesion strength of zinc phosphate cement and self-adhesive resin cement as fiber post cementation material. Both consumer cements were easy to use and cheap. Methods: The samples used numbered up to 20 and were divided into two groups. group 1 used zinc phosphate cement, while group 2 used self-adhesive resin cement. Results: The value of the average adhesion strength of group 1 (zinc phosphate) was 82.65 N, whereas that of group 2 (self-adhesive resin) was 402.81 N. Conclusion: This study concluded that the adhesive strength of self-adhesive resin cement as fiber post cementation material was higher than that of zinc phosphate cement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document