Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
J Clin Diagn Res. 2014 Mar;8(3):251-5. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/8092.4176. Epub 2014 Mar 15.

A Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Resin based Sealers on Retention of Crown Cemented with Three Types of Cement - An In Vitro Study.

Author information

1
Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences , Sehora, Jammu, India .
2
Professor and HOD, Department of Prosthodontics, K.M. Shah Dental College and Hospital , Vadodara, India .
3
Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, K.M. Shah Dental College and Hospital , Vadodara, India .
4
Reader, Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Institute of Dental Sciences , Sehora, Jammu, India .
5
Professor and HOD, Department of Conservative and Endodontic, Institute of Dental Sciences , Sehora,Jammu, India .
6
Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences , Sehora, Jammu, India .

Abstract

AIM:

In an effort to control postoperative sensitivity, dentin sealers are being applied following crown preparations, with little knowledge of how crown retention might be affected. A previous study demonstrated no adverse effect when using a gluteraldehyde-based sealer, and existing studies have shown conflicting results for resin-based products. This study determined the retention of the casting cemented with three types of cement, with and without use of resin sealers and it determined the mode of failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Extracted human molars (n=60) were prepared with a flat occlusal, 20-degree taper, and 4-mm axial length. The axial surface area of each preparation was determined and specimens were distributed equally among groups (n=10). A single-bottle adhesive system (one step single bottle adhesive system) was used to seal dentin, following tooth preparation. Sealers were not used on the control specimens. The test castings were prepared by using Ni-Cr alloy for each specimen and they were cemented with a seating force of 20 Kg by using either Zinc Phosphate (Harvard Cement), Glass Ionomer (GC luting and lining cement,GC America Inc.) and modified-resin cement (RelyXTMLuting2). Specimens were thermocycled for one month and were then removed along the path of insertion by using a Universal Testing Machine at 0.5 mm/min. A single-factor ANOVA was used with a p value of .05. The nature of failure was recorded and the data was analyzed by using Chi-square test.

RESULTS:

Mean dislodgement stress for Zinc phosphate (Group A) was 24.55±1.0 KgF and that for zinc phosphate with sealer (Group D) was 14.65±0.8 KgF. For glass ionomer (Group B) without sealer, the mean value was 32.0±1.0 KgF and mean value for glass ionomer with sealer (Group E) was 37.90±1.0 KgF. The mean value for modified resin cement (Group C) was 44.3±1.0KgF and that for modified resins with sealer (Group F) was 57.2±1.2 KgF. The tooth failed before casting dislodgement in 8 to 10 specimens cemented with modified-resin cement.

CONCLUSION:

Resin sealer decreased casting retentive stress by 46% when it was used with Zinc phosphate. However, sealer use resulted in 60% increased retention when it was used with Glass ionomer cement. The modified-resin cement produced the highest mean dislodgement stress, which nearly always exceeded the strength of the tooth.

KEYWORDS:

Dislodgement stress; One step sealer; Rely X Luting2; Retention

PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center