The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A Comparative Study of the Retentive Strengths of Commercial and Indigenously Developed Luting Cements using Both Lathe-cut and Clinically Simulated Specimens

Byju P Kurian, Joe Mathew, Biju Philip, Sunil Mohammed, Preetha Menon

Citation Information : Kurian BP, Mathew J, Philip B, Mohammed S, Menon P. A Comparative Study of the Retentive Strengths of Commercial and Indigenously Developed Luting Cements using Both Lathe-cut and Clinically Simulated Specimens. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (8):663-669.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1909

Published Online: 01-08-2016

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


Abstract

Introduction

Superior adhesive strength in luting agents is of paramount significance in fixed partial denture success. In this in vitro study five cements were tested for retentive qualities, using both lathe-cut and hand-prepared specimens.

Materials and methods

A total of 104 freshly extracted tooth specimens were prepared. Seventy of them were lathe-cut and 30 specimens were hand-prepared to simulate clinical conditions. Five different cements were tested, which included a compomer, a composite, a zinc phosphate, and 2 glass-ionomer luting cements. Of the 5, 2 trial cements were indigenously developed by Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST), Trivandrum, India – a glassionomer cement (Chitra GIC) and a chemical-cure composite (Chitra CCC). All cements were compared within each group and between groups (lathe-prepared and hand-prepared).

Results

GC Fuji 1 (GC America) exhibited superior retentive strengths in both lathe-cut and hand-prepared specimens, whereas the compomer cement displayed the lowest values when tested. In lathe-cut specimens, statistical analysis showed no significant difference between GC Fuji 1 and indigenously developed Chitra CCC.

Conclusion

Both Chitra CCC and GC Fuji 1 have comparable strengths in lathe-cut samples, making Chitra CCC a potential luting agent. Statistical analysis reveals that all cements, except GC Fuji 1, exhibited a significant decrease in strength due to the change in design uniformity. The chemical bonding of GC Fuji 1 proves to be quite strong irrespective of shape and precision of the tooth crown.

Clinical significance

The indigenously developed Chitra GIC and Chitra CCC showed promising results to be used as a potential luting agent.

How to cite this article

Mathew J, Kurian BP, Philip B, Mohammed S, Menon P, Raj RS. A Comparative Study of the Retentive Strengths of Commercial and Indigenously Developed Luting Cements using Both Lathe-cut and Clinically Simulated Specimens. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(8):663-669.


PDF Share
  1. Influence of luting materials on marginal fitness and tensile strength of full veneer crowns. Comparison between conventional dental cements and adhesive luting resins. Nippon Hotetsu Shika Gakkai Zasshi 1989 Feb;33(1):8-16.
  2. Tooth preparations for complete crowns: an art form based on scientific principles. J Prosthet Dent 2001 Apr;85(4):363-376.
  3. The effect of preparation taper on the retention of cemented cast crowns under lateral fatigue loading. J Prosthet Dent 2006 Jun;95(6):456-461.
  4. The effect of preparation height and luting agent on the resistance form of cemented cast crowns under load fatigue. J Prosthet Dent 2009 Sep;102(3):155-164.
  5. Effect of preparation finish on retention and fit of complete crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1986 Sep;56(3):283-288.
  6. The convergence angle in prepared teeth for artificial crowns. J Oral Rehabil 1978 Oct;5(4):371-375.
  7. Effect of internal microblasting on retention of cemented cast crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1990 Nov;64(5):557-562.
  8. Current status of luting agents for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1999 Feb;81(2):135-141.
  9. Luting cements: a review and comparison. Int Dent J 1991 Apr;41(2):81-88.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.