Article Data

  • Views 669
  • Dowloads 173

Original Research

Open Access

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

  • Priya Subramaniam1,*,
  • Sapna Kondae1
  • Kamal Kishore Gupta1

1Department of Pedodontics & Preventive Dentistry, The Oxford Dental College, Hospital & Research Centre, Bommanahalli, Hosur Road, Bangalore- 560068, Karnataka, India

DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.34.4.p5h1068v41ggt450 Vol.34,Issue 4,July 2010 pp.309-312

Published: 01 July 2010

*Corresponding Author(s): Priya Subramaniam E-mail: Priya Subramaniam

Abstract

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.

Keywords

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

Cite and Share

Priya Subramaniam,Sapna Kondae,Kamal Kishore Gupta. Retentive Strength of Luting Cements for Stainless Steel Crowns:An in vitro Study. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2010. 34(4);309-312.

References

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.

Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

PubMed (MEDLINE) PubMed comprises more than 35 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time

Conferences

Top