World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  15 (2024)
Volume  14 (2023)
Volume  13 (2022)
Volume  12 (2021)
Volume  11 (2020)
Volume  10 (2019)
Volume  9 (2018)
Volume  8 (2017)
Volume  7 (2016)
Volume  6 (2015)
Volume  5 (2014)
Volume  4 (2013)
Volume  3 (2012)
Volume  2 (2011)
Volume  1 (2010)
Related articles

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2019 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Film Thickness and Temperature of Different Luting Cements: An In Vitro Study

Raneem S Alofi

Keywords : Dental cements, Film thickness, Luting, Temperature

Citation Information : Alofi RS. Comparative Evaluation of Film Thickness and Temperature of Different Luting Cements: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2019; 10 (6):428-431.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1672

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-12-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare and assess film thickness and temperature of different luting cements. Materials and methods: A total of 45 samples (15 glass slabs with respective cements in each group) were prepared. Group I: zinc phosphate, group II: resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), group III: glass ionomer cement type I. This study was conducted as per the American Dental Association (ADA) specification no. 8 guidelines. Two glass slabs of 2 cm width and 5 cm length were used. The complete assembly of glass slabs was placed in a water bath at 25°C ± 2°C and 35°C ± 2°C temperature. One glass slab was placed on top of the other glass slab and a metallurgical microscope with a magnification of 10× was used to measure the space between the two glass slabs. Results: The lowest film thickness (22.180 ± 0.68) was reported for RMGIC, followed by the glass ionomer cement type I group (26.844 ± 0.24) and then the zinc phosphate group (27.650 ± 0.32). ANOVA analysis indicated statistically significant intergroup differences between different luting cements’ film thickness at 25°C ± 2°C temperature. At 35°C ± 2°C temperature, the lowest film thickness (26.262 ± 0.16) was reported for RMGIC, immediately followed by the glass ionomer cement type I group (27.713 ± 0.01) and then the zinc phosphate group (28.103 ± 0.10). However, the film thicknesses of different luting cements at 35°C ± 2°C temperature were not found to be statistically significant. Conclusion: After considering the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the resin-modified glass ionomer cement demonstrates the lowest film thickness when compared to the glass ionomer cement and zinc phosphate. This suggests that a temperature of 25°C ± 2°C is preferred for mixing the cement when it has to be used for the luting purpose. Clinical significance: The selection of the luting cement is a critical part in restorative dentistry. This study evaluated the effect of temperature on film thicknesses of different luting cements, which helps in the clinical selection of dental cements.

PDF Share
  1. Milsom KM, Tickle M, Blinkhorn A. The prescription and relative outcomes of different materials used in general dental practice in the northwest region of England to restore the primary dentition. J Dent 2002;30(2–3):77–82. DOI: 10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00061-6.
  2. Ladha K, Verma M. Conventional and contemporary luting cements: an overview. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2010;10(2):79–88. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-010-0022-0.
  3. Kim TH, Jivraj SA, Donovan TE. Selection of luting agents: part 2. J Calif Dent Assoc 2006;34(2):161–166.
  4. Paffenberger G, Beall J. American dental association specification no. 8 for dental zinc phosphate cement. J Am Dent Assoc 1937;24(12):2019–2023. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1937.0388.
  5. Hill EE. Dental cements for definitive luting: a review and practical clinical considerations. Dent Clin North Am 2007;51(3):643–658. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2007.04.002.
  6. De la Macorra JC, Pradies G. Conventional and adhesive luting cements. Clin Oral Investig 2002;6(4):198–204. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-002-0184-1.
  7. Attar N, Tam LE, McComb D. Mechanical and physical properties of contemporary dental luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89(2): 127–134. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2003.20.
  8. Cem KU, Hakan UY, Amirullah MA. Influence of layer thickness on stress distribution in ceramic-cement-dentin multilayer systems. Dent Mater J 2008;27(4):626–632. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.27.626.
  9. White SN, Yu Z. Film thickness of new adhesive luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67(6):782–785. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90582-U.
  10. Sadig W, Qudami E. Evaluation of film thickness of new adhesive luting resins. Saudi Dent J 1995;5:157–162.
  11. Jorgensen KD, Petersen GF. The grain size of zinc phosphate cements. Acta Odontol Scand 1963;21:255–270. DOI: 10.3109/00016356308993960.
  12. Hembree Jr JH, George TA, Hembree ME. Film thickness of cements beneath complete crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1978;39(5):533–535. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(78)80188-7.
  13. Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, Davidson CL, et al. Dual cure luting composites--part II: clinically related properties. J Oral Rehabil 1994;21(1):57–66. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1994.tb01124.x.
  14. Kumar MP, Priyadarshini R, Kumar YM, et al. Effect of temperature on film thickness of two types of commonly used luting cements. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(12):1159–1163. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2192.
  15. Schwartz IS. A review of methods and techniques to improve the fit of cast restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1986;56(3):279–283. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(86)90003-X.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.