Comparison of effect of desensitizing agents on the retention of crowns cemented with luting agents: anin vitrostudy (original) (raw)
Related papers
International journal of preventive & clinical dental research, 2018
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. [
The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 2012
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. 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 one-way ANOVA followed by Turkey-Kramer post hoc test at a preset alpha of 0.05. Resin modified glass iono...
Analysis of impact of desensitizing agents on the retention of crowns cemented with luting agents
International journal of health sciences
The present study was undertaken for assessing the impact of desensitizing agents on the retention of crowns cemented with luting agents. 40 freshly extracted mandibular molar teeth were selected. Two study groups were made: Group C: Control group-Glass ionomer cement; and Group G: Study group-GC Tooth Mousse desensitizer. Crowns were fabricated and were subjected under universal force testing machine. All the results were recorded in Microsoft excel sheet and were analyzed by SPSS software. Mean tensile bond strength of group C specimens was 49.1 Kg while mean tensile strength of Group 2 specimens was 47.1 Kg respectively. While comparing statistically, non-significant results were obtained. Application of desensitizing agents may be designated during fabrication of crowns as it will not affect the retentive ability of the luting cements.
International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2016
The effect of dentin pretreatment with Desensitizing Paste containing 8% arginine and calcium carbonate on the retention of zirconium oxide (Y-TZP) crowns was tested. Forty molar teeth were mounted and prepared using a standardized protocol. Y-TZP crowns were produced using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology. The 40 prepared teeth were either pretreated with Desensitizing Paste or not pretreated. After two weeks, each group was subdivided into two groups, cemented with either Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) or Self Adhesive Resin Cement (SARC)). Prior to cementation, the surface areas of the prepared teeth were measured. After aging, the cemented crown-tooth assemblies were tested for retentive strength using a universal testing machine. The debonded surfaces of the teeth and crowns were examined microscopically at 10ˆmagnification. Pretreating the dentin surfaces with Desensitizing Paste prior to cementation did not affect the retention of the Y-TZP crowns. The retentive values for RMGIC (3.04˘0.77 MPa) were significantly higher than those for SARC (2.28˘0.58 MPa). The predominant failure modes for the RMGIC and SARC were adhesive cement-dentin and adhesive cement-crown, respectively. An 8.0% arginine and calcium carbonate in-office desensitizing paste can be safely used to reduce post-cementation sensitivity without reducing the retentive strength of Y-TZP crowns.
World Journal of Dentistry
Aim and objective: The prevalence of dentinal hypersensitivity after tooth preparation is high and there is a need to explore the usage of contemporary agents in prosthodontics for this purpose. Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate the retention of fabricated copings on prepared teeth coated with freshly prepared arginine-calcium carbonate-fluoride and casein phosphopeptide (CPP)-amorphous calcium phosphate-fluoride desensitizing agents. Materials and methods: Forty-five extracted premolar teeth were mounted in autopolymerizing acrylic resin and prepared for complete cast metal copings following the standardized protocol. These preparations were randomly divided into three groups for the application of desensitizing agent: arginine based, CPP based, and control (without any agent). Each group was further subdivided into three and luted using either glass ionomer (GIC), resin modified glass ionomer (RMGIC), or resin cement. All these specimens were subjected to tensile bond strength evaluation using a universal testing machine. Results: The mean bond strengths (in Newtons) in the control group were 308.
Contemporary clinical dentistry, 2015
Desensitizers are used to reduce dentin hypersensitivity. They affect the surface texture of prepared dentin and may alter the retention of fixed restorations. The aim was to evaluate the effect of dentin desensitizers on the retention of complete cast metal crowns luted with glass ionomer cement. Fifty freshly extracted human premolars were subjected to standardized tooth preparation (20° total convergence, 4 mm axial height) with a computer numerically controlled machine. Individual cast metal crowns were fabricated from a base metal alloy. Dentin desensitizers included none (control), a glutaraldehyde (GLU) based primer (Gluma desensitizer), casein phosphopeptide (CPP)-amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP) (GC Mousse), erbium, chromium: YSGG laser (Waterlase MD Turbo, Biolase) and Pro-Argin (Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief desensitizing polishing paste). After desensitization, crowns were luted with glass ionomer cement and kept for 48 h at 37°C in 100% relative humidity. The samples we...
2018
The effect of dentin pretreatment with desensitizing paste containing 8% arginine and calcium carbonate on the retention of laser-sintered cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr)-based crowns was examined. Forty molars were prepared using a standardized protocol. The Co-Cr crowns were produced using selective laser melting. The teeth were either pretreated with the desensitizing paste or not pretreated. After one week, each group was cemented with glass ionomer cement (GIC) or zinc phosphate cement (ZPC). Surface areas of the teeth were measured before cementation. After aging, the cemented crown-tooth assemblies were tested for retentive strength using a universal testing machine. The debonded surfaces of the teeth and crowns were examined at 2.7× magnification. Pretreating the dentin surfaces with the desensitizing paste before cementation with GIC or ZPC did not affect the retention of the Co-Cr crowns. The retention of the GIC group (6.04±1.10 MPa) was significantly higher than tha...
2016
Abstract: The effect of dentin pretreatment with Desensitizing Paste containing 8 % arginine and calcium carbonate on the retention of zirconium oxide (Y-TZP) crowns was tested. Forty molar teeth were mounted and prepared using a standardized protocol. Y-TZP crowns were produced using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology. The 40 prepared teeth were either pretreated with Desensitizing Paste or not pretreated. After two weeks, each group was subdivided into two groups, cemented with either Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) or Self Adhesive Resin Cement (SARC)). Prior to cementation, the surface areas of the prepared teeth were measured. After aging, the cemented crown-tooth assemblies were tested for retentive strength using a universal testing machine. The debonded surfaces of the teeth and crowns were examined microscopically at 10 ˆ magnification. Pretreating the dentin surfaces with Desensitizing Paste prior to cementation did not ...
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, 2017
Background: Luting agents used to fix artificial prostheses, such as fixed partial denture (FPD) to tooth are basically viscous in nature and show chemical reaction for fixation. Postcementation hypersensitivity is a frequent complaint of patients. The present study was conducted to compare postcementation hypersensitivity with zinc phosphate and self-adhesive resin in complete coverage crown. Materials and methods: This study included 30 patients in which 60 porcelein fused to metal crowns was placed. Two metal crowns were placed in each patient in nonantagonistic contralateral quadrants. First crown was cemented with zinc phosphate cement, while the other was cemented with self-adhesive resin. Hypersensitivity was evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS) score and by clinical test. For clinical evaluation of sensitivity, hot and cold water was applied to the cervical margin of restoration for 5 seconds and response was recorded. Results: This study consisted of 30 patients in which 60 crowns were given. There was no statistical difference in VAS score of mastication in zinc phosphate cement recorded at baseline, 1 week, 4 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years (p > 0.05). Cold response also did not show a significant difference at six time points. Warm response showed slight decrease in subsequent time points but was nonsignificant (p > 0.05). Similarly, with selfadhesive resin cement, VAS score during mastication, hot and cold response was statistically nonsignificant (p > 0.05).