Fluoride release of glass ionomer–based luting cements in vitro

Robertello, Francis J.; Coffey, James P.; Lynde, Thomas A.; King, Peter

doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70152-6

Cited by 29 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…11 Many researchers use glass ionomer cement for cementing post. But, glass ionomer cement has several limitations and has been criticized by several authors, 12,13 whereas resin cement is more expensive and its bonding to the metallic post is questionable unless a primer is used for bonding. 14 The commonly used zinc phosphate cement was used as the material of choice for luting as it has good compressive strength.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth restored with Composite Resin Core using Two Different Designs of Prefabricated Metal Posts: An in vitro Study

Ram¹,

Shah²,

Gaikwad³

2017

Journal of Contemporary Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:To comparatively evaluate the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with light-cured composite resin core using two different designs of prefabricated metal posts. Materials and methods:A total of 30 single-rooted anterior teeth were selected for the study and endodontically treated. Teeth were sectioned 2 mm above the cementoenamel junction and were randomly divided into two groups (n = 15). Teeth in group I were restored with Parallel post-EG post and group II with parallel post with coronal flare-i post. Light-cured composite core buildup was done in all samples using a customized core former. Compressive load was applied at a 135° angle to the long axis of the tooth at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/minute until visible signs of fracture were observed. Levene's test and t-test were used to determine the difference of the failure loads between the groups (α = 0.05). Results:The mean values (standard deviation [SD]) for fracture resistance were 295.55 N and 469.59 N for parallel post-EG post and parallel post with coronal flare-i post respectively. Since the p-value for the t-test is less than 0.05, it indicates that we should reject null hypothesis and conclude that the mean fracture load of parallel post with coronal flare-i post is significantly more than that of mean fracture load of parallel post-EG post. Conclusion:The study conducted evaluated that the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with parallel post with coronal flare-i post and core buildup had better strength as compared with parallel post-EG post and core buildup.Clinical significance: The present study will help the clinician to select the appropriate prefabricated metal post that will fit exactly into the coronal flare of the canal improving clinical performance, thus increasing the longevity of the restoration.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth restored with Composite Resin Core using Two Different Designs of Prefabricated Metal Posts: An in vitro Study

Ram¹,

Shah²,

Gaikwad³

2017

Journal of Contemporary Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the whole experimental period, the storage media used was deionized water as it is devoid of any ions, doesn't react with the ions of restorative materials. Reports from the studies of Robertella Francis (1999) (20) suggested that, there are certain variations seen in natural saliva and technical difficulties associated with the use of artificial saliva so deionized water was used in this study to ensure that fluoride release would be unaffected by these variables. Teflon moulds were used in the present study to prepare the experimental pellets as they can be autoclaved and do not react with any material…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These findings are favoured by the independent studies done regarding the deposition of fluoride in incipient carious lesions which suggested that a greater amount of fluoride deposition was obtained with sodium fluoride dentifrices than with sodium monofluorophosphate dentifrices (19)(20)(21)(22) As Sodium fluoride is an odourless, white solid powder. It is highly soluble in water to the extent of one gram in 25ml.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vision is the Art of Seeing Things Invisible - An invitro Comparative Evaluation

Jaidka¹,

Pandit²,

Jawa³

et al. 2011

Journal of Oral Health and Community Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Restoration failure due to secondary caries is a continuing problem in restorative dentistry. Aims and objective: The present study is undertaken to see whether various fluoridated dentifrices recharge fluoride releasing restorative materials and, comparatively evaluate their recharging capabilities. Materials and method: Materials used in the study are Fuji II LC, Compomer, Teethmate F1, Alfadent sealant. Dentifrices used are Sodiumflouride and Sodiummonoflurophasphate releasing. All restorative materials were mixed according to manufacturer's instruction and standardized test pellets were made using autoclaved instruments in sterile Teflon moulds. These test pellets were divided in various groups and brushed with various fluoridated and nonfluoridated dentifrices accordingly . Results were evaluated stastically using ANOVA , t-test and correlation coefficient for which regression lines were drawn. It was concluded that Sodiumfluoride containing dentifrices recharged fluoride releasing restorative material more than Sodium monoflurophasphate containing dentifrices

show abstract

“…• Less sensitive to early moisture contamination and desiccation during setting and less soluble than the glass-ionomer cement because of covalent crosslinking of the polyacrylate salt from free-radical polymerization [58,62], • Easy manipulation and use • Adequately low film thickness [63,64], • Fluoride release similar to conventional GIC [65] • Polymerization is not significantly affected by the eugenol-containing provisional materials, as long as the provisional cement is completely removed with thorough prophylaxis [66]. • Minimal post-operative sensitivity.…”

Section: Powder-consists Of An Ion-leachable Glass and Initiators Formentioning

confidence: 99%

Conventional and Contemporary Luting Cements: An Overview

Ladha¹,

Verma

2010

J Indian Prosthodont Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-term clinical success of fixed prosthodontic restorations is influenced by many factors, one important factor being the selection of an appropriate luting agent. No single luting agent is capable of meeting all the stringent requirements, which is one reason why there is such a wide choice of luting agents currently available from conventional water-based to contemporary adhesive resin cements. Introduction of adhesive resin systems has completely changed the face of fixed prosthodontic practice leading to an increased use of bonded all-ceramic crowns and resin-retained fixed partial dentures. This article makes an effort to review various conventional and contemporary luting agents, their properties & associated clinical implications thereby trying to help the clinician select an appropriate luting agent for a given clinical situation.

show abstract

Fluoride release of glass ionomer–based luting cements in vitro

Cited by 29 publications

References 27 publications

A Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth restored with Composite Resin Core using Two Different Designs of Prefabricated Metal Posts: An in vitro Study

A Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth restored with Composite Resin Core using Two Different Designs of Prefabricated Metal Posts: An in vitro Study

Vision is the Art of Seeing Things Invisible - An invitro Comparative Evaluation

Conventional and Contemporary Luting Cements: An Overview

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About