Comparison of effect of desensitizing agents on the retention of crowns cemented with luting agents: an in vitro study
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
PURPOSE. Many dentists use desensitizing agents to prevent hypersensitivity. This study compared and evaluated the effect of two desensitizing agents on the retention of cast crowns when cemented with various luting agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Ninety freshly extracted human molars were prepared with flat occlusal surface, 6 degree taper and approximately 4 mm axial length. The prepared specimens were divided into 3 groups and each group is further divided into 3 subgroups. Desensitizing agents used were GC Tooth Mousse and GLUMA desensitizer. Cementing agents used were zinc phosphate, glass ionomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement. Individual crowns with loop were made from base metal alloy. Desensitizing agents were applied before cementation of crowns except for control group. Under tensional force the crowns were removed using an automated universal testing machine. Statistical analysis included oneway ANOVA followed by Turkey-Kramer post hoc test at a preset alpha of 0.05. RESULTS. Resin modified glass ionomer cement exhibited the highest retentive strength and all dentin treatments resulted in significantly different retentive values (In Kg.): GLUMA (49.02 +/- 3.32) > Control (48.61 +/- 3.54) > Tooth mousse (48.34 +/- 2.94). Retentive strength for glass ionomer cement were GLUMA (41.14 +/- 2.42) > Tooth mousse (40.32 +/- 3.89) > Control (39.09 +/- 2.80). For zinc phosphate cement the retentive strength were lowest GLUMA (27.92 +/- 3.20) > Control (27.69 +/- 3.39) > Tooth mousse (25.27 +/- 4.60). CONCLUSION. The use of GLUMA desensitizer has no effect on crown retention. GC Tooth Mousse does not affect the retentive ability of glass ionomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement, but it decreases the retentive ability of zinc phosphate cement.
Abstract
PURPOSE. Many dentists use desensitizing agents to prevent hypersensitivity. This study compared and evaluated the effect of two desensitizing agents on the retention of cast crowns when cemented with various luting agents. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Ninety freshly extracted human molars were prepared with flat occlusal surface, 6 degree taper and approximately 4 mm axial length. The prepared specimens were divided into 3 groups and each group is further divided into 3 subgroups. Desensitizing agents used were GC Tooth Mousse and GLUMA desensitizer. Cementing agents used were zinc phosphate, glass ionomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement. Individual crowns with loop were made from base metal alloy. Desensitizing agents were applied before cementation of crowns except for control group. Under tensional force the crowns were removed using an automated universal testing machine. Statistical analysis included oneway ANOVA followed by Turkey-Kramer post hoc test at a preset alpha of 0.05. RESULTS. Resin modified glass ionomer cement exhibited the highest retentive strength and all dentin treatments resulted in significantly different retentive values (In Kg.): GLUMA (49.02 +/- 3.32) > Control (48.61 +/- 3.54) > Tooth mousse (48.34 +/- 2.94). Retentive strength for glass ionomer cement were GLUMA (41.14 +/- 2.42) > Tooth mousse (40.32 +/- 3.89) > Control (39.09 +/- 2.80). For zinc phosphate cement the retentive strength were lowest GLUMA (27.92 +/- 3.20) > Control (27.69 +/- 3.39) > Tooth mousse (25.27 +/- 4.60). CONCLUSION. The use of GLUMA desensitizer has no effect on crown retention. GC Tooth Mousse does not affect the retentive ability of glass ionomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement, but it decreases the retentive ability of zinc phosphate cement.
참고문헌 (17)
- Johnston JF, "Johnston's modern practice in fixed prosthodontics. 4th ed" (1986), WB saunders Co
- Addy M., "Etiology and clinical implications of dentine hypersensitivity", Dent Clin North Am, 34, pp.503~514 (1990)
- Johnson RH, "The effectiveness of an electro-ionizing toothbrush in the control of dentinal hypersensitivity", J Periodontol, 53, pp.353~359 (1982)
- Richardson D, "Dentin permeability: effects of crown preparation", Int J Prosthodont, 4, pp.219~225 (1991)
- Zaimoglu A, "An evaluation of smear layer with various desensitizing agents after tooth preparation", J Prosthet Dent, 68, pp.450~457 (1992)
- Kaufman EG, "Factors influencing the retention of cemented gold castings", J Prosthet Dent, 11, pp.486~502 (1961)
- Malone WFP, "Tylman's theory and practice for fixed prosthodontics. 8th ed" (1989), Ishiyaku Euroamerica
- Yim NH, "Effect of dentin desensitizers and cementing agents on retention of full crowns using standardized crown preparations", J Prosthet Dent, 83, pp.459~465 (2000)
- Johnson GH, "The effect of a resinbased sealer on crown retention for three types of cement", J Prosthet Dent, 91, pp.428~435 (2004)
- Palacios RP, "Retention of zirconium oxide ceramic crowns with three types of cement", J Prosthet Dent, 96, pp.104~114 (2006)
- Kern M, "Clinical comparison of postoperative sensitivity for a glass ionomer and a zinc phosphate luting cement", J Prosthet Dent, 75, pp.159~162 (1996)
- Bebermeyer RD, "Comparison of patient-perceived postcementation sensitivity with glass-ionomer and zinc phosphate cements", Quintessence Int, 25, pp.209~214 (1994)
- Mazzaoui SA, "Dashper SG, Eakins D, Reynolds EC. Incorporation of casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate into a glass-ionomer cement", J Dent Res, 82, pp.914~918 (2003)
- Tubule occlusion of a NovaMin-containing dentrifrice compared to Recaldent-containing dentrifice-a Remin, "Demin study in vitro. NovaMin Research Report", Burwell A., 2006
- Swift EJ Jr, "The effect of resin desensitizing agents on crown retention", J Am Dent Assoc, 128, pp.195~200 (1997)
- Johnson GH, "Crown retention with use of a5% glutaraldehyde sealer on prepared dentin", J Prosthet Dent, 79, pp.671~676 (1998)
- Arrais CA, "Effects of desensitizing agents on dentinal tubule occlusion", J Appl Oral Sci, 12, pp.144~148 (2004)