Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of luting cements for minimally retentive crown preparations.
Quintessence Int. 2002 Feb; 33(2):95-100.QI

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the retentive strengths of resin, glass-ionomer, and zinc phosphate cements under adverse conditions.

METHOD AND MATERIALS

Thirty extracted teeth were mounted and prepared in their long axis. The axial wall height was 3 mm and the convergence angle was 28 degrees. These conditions increased the role of the cement and decreased the role of the preparation in providing retention of the casting. The axial surface area was determined. Copings were fabricated with a ring aligned in the long axis to facilitate removal of the crown. They were cemented with a resin cement, a glass-ionomer cement, or a zinc phosphate cement. A block randomization scheme was used to assign cements so that the mean surface areas of the teeth were equivalent in all groups. The copings were loaded in tension, and the amount of force required to remove the coping was recorded. The stress required to remove the coping was calculated.

RESULTS

The mean stress required to remove the copings was 9.4, 5.0, and 3.1 MPa for the resin, glass-ionomer, and zinc phosphate cements, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The resin cement group was significantly stronger than both the glass-ionomer cement and the zinc phosphate cement groups. The glass-ionomer cement was significantly stronger than the zinc phosphate cement.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Medical College of Georgia, School of Dentistry, 1120 15th Street, Augusta, Georgia 30912-1260, USA. wbrownin@mail.mcg.eduNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

11890033

Citation

Browning, William D., et al. "Comparison of Luting Cements for Minimally Retentive Crown Preparations." Quintessence International (Berlin, Germany : 1985), vol. 33, no. 2, 2002, pp. 95-100.
Browning WD, Nelson SK, Cibirka R, et al. Comparison of luting cements for minimally retentive crown preparations. Quintessence Int. 2002;33(2):95-100.
Browning, W. D., Nelson, S. K., Cibirka, R., & Myers, M. L. (2002). Comparison of luting cements for minimally retentive crown preparations. Quintessence International (Berlin, Germany : 1985), 33(2), 95-100.
Browning WD, et al. Comparison of Luting Cements for Minimally Retentive Crown Preparations. Quintessence Int. 2002;33(2):95-100. PubMed PMID: 11890033.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of luting cements for minimally retentive crown preparations. AU - Browning,William D, AU - Nelson,Stephen K, AU - Cibirka,Roman, AU - Myers,Michael L, PY - 2002/3/14/pubmed PY - 2002/7/4/medline PY - 2002/3/14/entrez SP - 95 EP - 100 JF - Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985) JO - Quintessence Int VL - 33 IS - 2 N2 - OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the retentive strengths of resin, glass-ionomer, and zinc phosphate cements under adverse conditions. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Thirty extracted teeth were mounted and prepared in their long axis. The axial wall height was 3 mm and the convergence angle was 28 degrees. These conditions increased the role of the cement and decreased the role of the preparation in providing retention of the casting. The axial surface area was determined. Copings were fabricated with a ring aligned in the long axis to facilitate removal of the crown. They were cemented with a resin cement, a glass-ionomer cement, or a zinc phosphate cement. A block randomization scheme was used to assign cements so that the mean surface areas of the teeth were equivalent in all groups. The copings were loaded in tension, and the amount of force required to remove the coping was recorded. The stress required to remove the coping was calculated. RESULTS: The mean stress required to remove the copings was 9.4, 5.0, and 3.1 MPa for the resin, glass-ionomer, and zinc phosphate cements, respectively. CONCLUSION: The resin cement group was significantly stronger than both the glass-ionomer cement and the zinc phosphate cement groups. The glass-ionomer cement was significantly stronger than the zinc phosphate cement. SN - 0033-6572 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/11890033/Comparison_of_luting_cements_for_minimally_retentive_crown_preparations_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -