Retentive Strength of Luting Cements for Stainless Steel Crowns:An in vitro Study

The present study evaluated and compared the retentive strength of three luting cements. A total of forty five freshly extracted human primary molars were used in this study. The teeth were prepared to receive stainless steel crowns. They were then randomly divided into three groups, of fifteen teeth each, so as to receive the three different luting cements: conventional glass ionomer, resin modified glass ionomer and adhesive resin. The teeth were then stored in artificial saliva for twenty four hours. The retentive strength of the crowns was determined by using a specially designed Instron Universal Testing Machine (Model 1011). The data was statistically analyzed using ANOVA to evaluate retentive strength for each cement and Tukey test for pair wise comparison. It was concluded that retentive strength of adhesive resin cement and resin modified glass ionomer cement was significantly higher than that of the conventional glass ionomer cement.

stainless steel crowns, glass ionomer cement, resin modified glass ionomer cement, adhesive resin cement

1. Murray J. Prevalence of dental caries: retrospect and prospect; Dent Update, 25: 374–378, 1998.

2. Roberts JF, Attari N, Sheriff M. The survival of resin modified glass ionomer and stainless steel crown restorations in primary molars placed in a specialist paediatric dental practice; Br Dent J, 198: 427–431, 2005.

3. Jeffery AR, Mitchell RJ, Speeding RA. The influence of tooth preparation and crown manipulation and crown cementation on mechanical retention of stainless steel crowns. J Dent Child, 52: 422–427, 1985.

4. Fayle SA. UK National Clinical Guidelines in Paediatric dentistry. Int J Paediatr Dent, 9(4): 311–314, 1999.

5. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Crispin BJ. Dental luting agents: A review of the current literature. J Prosthet Dent, 80: 280–301, 1998.

6. McCabe JF, Walls AWG. Applied Dental Materials.8th Ed. Blackwell Science, UK, 189–217,1996.

7. Rezk-Laga F, Ogaard B, Rolla B. Tensile bond force of glass ionomer cements in direct bonding of orthodontic brackets: An in vitro comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop, 100: 357–361, 1991.

8. Reddy R, Basappa N, Reddy VVS. A comparative study of retentive strength of zinc phosphate, polycarboxylate and glass ionomer cements with stainless steel crown-An In-vitro study. J Ind Soc Pedo Prev Dent, 9–11, 1998.

9. Mojon P, Hawbolt EB, MacEntee ME, Ma PH. Early bond strength of luting cements to precious alloy. J Dent Res, 71: 1633–1639, 1992.

10. Khinda VIS, Grewal N. Preventive efficacy of glass ionomer, zinc phosphate and zinc polycarboxylate luting cements in preformed stainless steel crowns: A comparative clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedo Prev Dent, 20: 41–46, 2002.

11. Phillips science of dental material. 10th Ed.WB Saunders Company. Philadelphia: 555–581, 1996.

12. Mitchell CA, Douglas WH, Cheng YS. Fracture toughness of conventional, resin modified glass ionomer and composite luting cements. Dent Mater, 15: 713, 1999.

13. Mc Lean JW. Glass ionomer cements. Br Dent J, 164: 293–300, 2000.

14. Sahmali S, Demiral F, Saygili G. Comparison of in vitro tensile bond strength of luting cements to metallic and tooth colored postes.In J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 24: 256–263, 2004.

15. Omar R. A comparative study of the retentive capacity of dental cementing agents. J Prosthet Dent, 60: 35–40, 1988.

16. Browning WD, Nelson SK, Cibirka R, Myers ML. Comparison of luting cements for minimally retentive crown preparation. Quintissence Int, 33(2): 95–100, 2002.

17. Ergin S, Gemalmaz D. Retentive properties of five different luting cements on base and noble metal copings. J Prosthet Dent, 88: 491–497, 2002.

18. Kanchanavasita W, Pearson GJ, Anstice HM. Influence of humidity on dimensional stability of a range of ion leachable cements. Biomaterials, 16: 921–929, 1995.

19. Jokstad A. A split mouth randomized clinical trial of single crowns retained with resin modified glass ionomer and zinc phosphate luting cements. Int Prosthodont, 17: 411–416, 2004.

20. Kumbuloglu O, Lassila LVU, User A, Toksavul S, Vallittu PK. Bond strength of luting cement to casting and soldering alloys. Eur J Prosthodont Rest Dent, 14: 18–22, 2006.

21. Leevailoj C, Plati JA, Cochran MA, Moore BK. In vitro study of fracture incidence and compressive fracture load of all ceramic crowns cemented with resin modified glass ionomer and other luting agents. J Prosthet Dent, 80: 699–707, 1998.

22. Cohen BL, Condos S, Deutsch AS, Musikant BL. Retentive properties of a threaded split post with attachment sleeves cemented with various luting agents. J Prosthet Dent, 63: 149–154, 1993.

23. Proussaefs P. Crown cemented on crown preparations lacking geometric resistance form Part II: Effect of cement. J Prothodont, 13: 36–41, 2004.

24. Mitchell CA, Orr JF. Comparison of conventional and resin modified glass ionomer luting cements in retention of post crowns by fatigue loading. J Oral Rehabilitation, 25: 472–478, 2004.

25. Mitchell CA, Abbariki M, Orr JF. The influence of luting cement on the probalities of survival and modes of failure of cast full coverage crowns. Dent Mater, 16: 198–206, 2000.