1978
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1978.tb01257.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The influence of surface roughness on the retentive ability of two dental luting cements

Abstract: Two series of brass cones and two series of dentine posts with varying surface roughness were produced. Maximum roughness value and arithmetical mean roughness were recorded for each cone. Brass crowns were cemented either with zinc phosphate cement (De Trey's zinc Cenment Improved) or with polycarboxylate cement (Durelon). A tensile stress was applied until the crown and the cone separated. The retentive force in relation to retention area was measured. The results showed that the retentive ability of both ce… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
41
1
8

Year Published

1984
1984
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 87 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
1
41
1
8
Order By: Relevance
“…All of the posts had surfaces with 2·1° angle of divergence. The post surfaces were sandblasted and the mean value of surface roughness R a (Øilo & Jørgensen, 1978) amounted to approximately 12·9 μm. This value was determined by the manufacturer with a surface profile measuring instrument (Model S8P Perthometer†).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All of the posts had surfaces with 2·1° angle of divergence. The post surfaces were sandblasted and the mean value of surface roughness R a (Øilo & Jørgensen, 1978) amounted to approximately 12·9 μm. This value was determined by the manufacturer with a surface profile measuring instrument (Model S8P Perthometer†).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For many years, retention of indirect restorations could be attained only by the use of favorable tooth preparations and by mechanical interlocking of the luting agent in irregularities present on the surface of the restoration and the tooth, respectively. 1,2 The luting agent of choice was zinc phosphate cement, which has shown a successful clinical record. [3][4][5][6] In 1976, glass ionomer cements were marketed for use as luting agents.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Choice of luting agents in different clinical situations Children teeth with large pulp chambers Zinc polycarboxylate [19] Zinc phosphate, Glass-ionomer Teeth prepared to receive partial veneer crown or retainer Adhesive resin, RMGI (less solubility and microleakage)Glass-ionomer (being translucent makes enamel adjacent to metal castings appear slightly gray)[50], Zinc phosphate[7] Source: Refs [19,15,37,50,7]. …”
mentioning
confidence: 99%