Performance of a glass ionomer luting cement over 5 years in a general practice

Ww, Brackett; Metz, James E.

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(92)90050-k

Cited by 15 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The presence of hypersensitivity with GIC at the end of 7 days is in accordance with many of the previous studies which showed that hypersensitivity with GIC usually resolves after a few weeks. 5 The better performance of resin cement used in our study is in contrast with studies by Denner N et al in which both the resin and GI group had decreased sensitivity 1 week postcementation. 7 In their study, slight sensitivity was found in 13.3% of subjects with resin cement and only 5.9% subjects with GIC.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 55%

“…4 Glass ionomer luting cement is one of the most commonly used definitive luting agents for cast restorations. 5,6 The luting agent has a low initial setting pH at the time of placement and this has been implicated as a cause of postcementation sensitivity in the past. [7][8][9] Resin based luting cements which are a recent introduction in the market exhibit lower solubility in comparison to conventional GICs and their pH at placement is also higher as compared to GICs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Shetty¹,

Bhat²,

Mehta³

et al. 2012

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 55%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Shetty¹,

Bhat²,

Mehta³

et al. 2012

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The height and resistance form of the preparation, occlusal factors, and caries susceptibility all play a role in the selection. Although zinc phosphate and conventional glass‐ionomer cements have proven successful over time,24,25 the increased bond strength, potential fluoride release, and negligible solubility of the resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement used in this study make it an excellent choice when both retention and caries are of concern. Based on the findings of this study, when Fuji‐Plus resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement is selected, microabrasion and tin‐plating should be used when luting Olympia metal‐ceramic alloy castings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tensile bond strength of resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement to microabraded and silica‐coated or tin‐plated high noble ceramic alloy

Swartz¹,

Davis²,

Overton³

2000

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The height and resistance form of the preparation, occlusal factors, and caries susceptibility all play a role in the selection. Although zinc phosphate and conventional glass-ionomer cements have proven successful over time, 24,25 the increased bond strength, potential fluoride release, and negligible solubility of the resin-modified glassionomer cement used in this study make it an excellent choice when both retention and caries are of concern. Based on the findings of this study, when Fuji-Plus resin-modified glass-ionomer ce-ment is selected, microabrasion and tin-plating should be used when luting Olympia metal-ceramic alloy castings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tensile bond strength of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement to microabraded and silica-coated or tin-plated high noble ceramic alloy

Swartz¹,

Davis²,

Overton³

2000

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of alloy surface microabrasion, silica coating, or microabrasion plus tin plating on the tensile bond strengths between a resin-modified glass-ionomer luting cement and a high-noble alloy. Bond strength between the microabraded alloy specimens and conventional glass-ionomer cement or resin cement were included for comparison.Materials and Methods: One hundred twenty uniform size, disk-shaped specimens were cast in a noble metal alloy and divided into 6 groups (n ‫؍‬ 10 pairs/group). The metal surfaces of the specimens in each group were treated and cemented as follows. Group 1: No surface treatment (as cast, control), cemented with a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. Group 2: Microabrasion with 50-m aluminum oxide particles, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. Group 3: A laboratory microabrasion and silica coating system, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. Group 4: Microabrasion and tin-plating, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. Group 5: Microabrasion only, conventional glass-ionomer cement. Group 6: Microabrasion and tin-plating, conventional resin cement. The uniaxial tensile bond strength for each specimen pair was determined using an Instron Universal Testing Machine (Instron Corp, Canton, MA). Results were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance (␣ ‫؍‬ 0.05) and a Tukey post-hoc analysis. Results: Mean bond strength: Group 1: 3.6 (؎1.5) MPa. Group 2: 4.2 (؎0.5) MPa. Group 3: 6.7 (؎0.9) MPa. Group 4: 10.6 (؎1.8) MPa. Group 5: 1.1 (؎0.4) MPa. Group 6: 14.6 (؎2.3) MPa. Group 6 was significantly stronger than Group 4. The bond strength of specimens cemented with the resin-modified glass-ionomer cement using microabrasion and tin-plating (Group 4) was significantly stronger than all other groups except the resin cement with microabrasion and tin-plating (Group 6).Conclusion: Microabraded and tin-plated alloy specimens luted with the resin-modified glassionomer cement resulted in the greatest mean tensile strengths for the resin-modified glassionomer cement groups. This strength was 73% of the mean tensile strength of microabraded specimens luted with resin cement. J Prosthodont 2000;9;195-200. This is a US government work. There are no restrictions on its use.

show abstract

Performance of a glass ionomer luting cement over 5 years in a general practice

Cited by 15 publications

References 12 publications

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

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

Tensile bond strength of resin‐modified glass‐ionomer cement to microabraded and silica‐coated or tin‐plated high noble ceramic alloy

Tensile bond strength of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement to microabraded and silica-coated or tin-plated high noble ceramic alloy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About