Comparison of Retentive Strength of Glass Ionomer Cement, Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement, and Adhesive Resin Cement with Nickel–Chromium Cast Crown: An In Vitro Study

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.

Download Full-text

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

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice ◽

10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1974 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 17 (12) ◽

pp. 1016-1021 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

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.

Download Full-text

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

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice ◽

10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1146 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 13 (3) ◽

pp. 327-331 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

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.

Download Full-text

Sealing ability of materials used as protective cervical barrier in internal tooth bleaching

RSBO ◽

10.21726/rsbo.v14i2.641 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 14 (2) ◽

pp. 67-73

Author(s):

Juan Fernando Ordoñéz-Aguilera ◽

Rafael Massunari Maenosono ◽

Denise Ferracioli Oda ◽

Heitor Marques Honório ◽

Rafael Francisco Lia Mondelli ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Resin Composite ◽

Glass Ionomer Cement ◽

Rank Correlation ◽

In Vitro Study ◽

Tooth Bleaching ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Sealing Ability ◽

Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽

Ionomer Cement

The use of a protective cervical barrier (PCB) is very well established to perform a safe internal bleaching; however, there is still no consensus on which material has the best sealing ability. Objective: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the apical and linear sealing of different PCB materials placed during internal bleaching. Material and methods: This study had two study factors: PCB positioning, divided at two levels (cement-enamel junction [CEJ] and 1mm above the cement enamel junction [CEJ+1]); and PCB material, divided at eight levels (resin composite [RC], glass ionomer cement [GIC], resin-modified glass ionomer cement liner [LRGIC], restorative resin-modified glass ionomer cement [RRGIC], zinc phosphate cement [ZPC], eugenol-free zinc oxide cement [ZOC], provisional filling resin [PFR] and gutta-percha as control [GUT]). Response variables were apical and linear sealing obtained through dye penetration and analyzed with a digital microscope. Data were subjected to two-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey test (p<0.05). Results: The main factor for both apical and linear sealing was the type of material (p<0.01) regardless of their position. RC and ZPC presented the worst sealing values (p<0.05). The Spearman rank correlation coefficient revealed a positive correlation between the apical and linear leakage. Conclusion: The results suggest that RC and ZPC must be avoided as a PCB during internal bleaching procedures.

Download Full-text