The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of the Solubility of Conventional Luting Cements with that of the Polyacid Modified Composite Luting Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement

Mathew Thomas, Mohammed Mustafa, Reshma Karkera, AP Nirmal Raj, Lijo Isaac, R Naveen Reddy

Citation Information : Thomas M, Mustafa M, Karkera R, Raj AN, Isaac L, Reddy RN. Comparison of the Solubility of Conventional Luting Cements with that of the Polyacid Modified Composite Luting Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (12):1016-1021.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1974

Published Online: 00-12-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

This study was planned to find the solubility of the conventional luting cements in comparison with that of the polyacid-modified composite luting cement and recently introduced resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) with exposure to water at early stages of mixing.

Materials and methods

An in vitro study of the solubility of the following five commercially available luting cements, viz., glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Fuji I, GC), zinc phosphate (Elite 100, GC), polyacid-modified resin cement (PMCR) (Principle, Dentsply), polycarboxylate cement (PC) (Poly - F, Dentsply), RMGIC (Vitremer, 3M), was conducted. For each of these groups of cements, three resin holders were prepared containing two circular cavities of 5 mm diameter and 2 mm depth. All the cements to be studied were mixed in 30 seconds and then placed in the prepared cavities in the resin cement holder for 30 seconds.

Results

From all of the observed luting cements, PMCR cement had shown the lowest mean loss of substance at all immersion times and RMGIC showed the highest mean loss of substance at all immersion times in water from 2 to 8 minutes. The solubility of cements decreased by 38% for GIC, 33% for ZnPO4, 50% for PMCR, 29% for PC, and 17% for RMGIC.

Conclusion

The PMCR cement (Principle-Dentsply) had shown lowest solubility to water at the given time intervals of immersion. This was followed by PC, zinc phosphate, and GIC to various time intervals of immersion.

How to cite this article

Karkera R, Nirmal Raj AP, Isaac L, Mustafa M, Reddy RN, Thomas M. Comparison of the Solubility of Conventional Luting Cements with that of the Polyacid Modified Composite Luting Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(12):1016-1021.


PDF Share
  1. Contemporary permanent luting agents used in dentistry: a literature review. Int Dent Res 2011 Jan;1(1):26-31.
  2. Dental cements for definitive luting: a review and practical clinical considerations. Dent Clin North Am 2007 Jul;51(3):643-658.
  3. Dental luting agents: a review of the current literature. J Prosthet Dent 1998 Sep;80(3):280-301.
  4. Conventional and contemporary luting cements: an overview. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2010 Jun;10(2):79-88.
  5. Solubility of four dental luting cements. J Int Dent Med Res 2010 Oct;3(3):104-107.
  6. In vivo disintegration of luting cements. OHDMBSC 2005;4(3):33-43.
  7. In vitro solubility of three types of resin and conventional luting cements. J Oral Rehabil 1998 Apr;25(4):285-291.
  8. Confocal laser scanning microscopic observations of secondary caries inhibition around different types of luting cements. Am J Dent 2005 Aug;18(4):245-250.
  9. In vitro solubility of three types of resin and conventional luting cements. J Oral Rehabil 1998 Apr;25(4):284-291.
  10. Compressive strength of resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material: effect of P/L ratio and storage time. J Appl Oral Sci 2005 Dec;13(4):356-359.
  11. A review of conventional and contemporary luting agents used in dentistry. Am J Mater Sci Eng 2014 Jan;2(3):28-35.
  12. Evaluation of the solubility of resinmodified glass Ionomer cements. Hacettepe Di hekimli i Fakültesi Dergisi 2007;31(3):3-7.
  13. IOSR J Dental Med Sci (IOSR-JDMS) 2014;13(3-1):41-45.
  14. Luting cements: a review and comparison. Int Dent J 1991 Apr;41(2):81-88.
  15. Protection of glass ionomer cements during the setting reaction. J Prosthet Dent 1995 Apr;73(4):400-401.
  16. A preliminary report on the effect of storage in water on the properties of commercial light cured Glass Ionomer cements. Br Dent J 1992 Aug;173(3):98-101.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.