Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Effect of dentin desensitizers and cementing agents on retention of full crowns using standardized crown preparations

  • Nantiya H. Yim(corresponding author)
    ,
  • ,
  • W. Frank Caughman
    ,
  • F. Michael Gardner
    ,
  • David H. Pashley
*Corresponding author for this work
Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Abstract

Statement of problem. Past research has not controlled preparation surface area when examining the influence of dentin desensitizers on the retentive strength of cemented cast crowns, leading to inconsistent results. Purpose. This research controlled crown preparation surface area and evaluated the effect of various dentin desensitizers and conventional cementing agents on the in vitro retentive strength of cast crowns. Methods and material. Freshly extracted human molars were prepared for a standardized crown preparation (26 degrees total convergence, 4 mm axial height) with a custom-made pantograph. Dentin desensitizers included none (control), a polymerizable material (All-Bond 2), and a nonpolymerizable desensitizer (Gluma Desensitizer). Cementing agents included zinc phosphate (Fleck's), glass ionomer (Ketac-Cem), resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji II), and resin cement (Panavia 21). Twelve teeth were prepared for each test condition (144 teeth total). Individual castings were made from a base metal alloy (Rexillium III). Crowns were removed after storage at 26°C for 48 hours at 100% relative humidity using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1.27 mm/min. The proportion of cement retained on the tooth and casting after debonding was quantified according to treatment. Statistical treatment included 1- and 2-way ANOVAs, followed by the Tukey-Kramer post hoc test at a preset alpha of 0.05. Results. Resin cement exhibited the highest retentive strength and all dentin treatments resulted in significantly different retentive values (All-Bond 2 (5.68 ± 0.70 MPa) > control (4.67 ± 0.48 MPa) > Gluma (4.12 ± 0.37 MPa)). Retention of resin-modified glass ionomer was between the resin cement and glass ionomer groups: All-Bond 2 (3.46 ± 0.26 MPa) > Gluma (2.81 ± 0.15 MPa) = control (2.96 ± 0.18 MPa). Conventional glass ionomer values were between those of Fuji Plus and zinc phosphate groups: All Bond 2 (2.23 ± 0.20 MPa) = control (2.36 ± 0.20 MPa) > Gluma (1.98 ± 0.23 MPa). Zinc phosphate had the lowest retention values: control (1.68 ± 0.08 MPa) > Gluma (0.81 ± 0.11 MPa) > All-Bond 2 (0.67 ± 0.14 MPa). The majority of cement was retained on the debonded tooth surface versus the casting, with the exception of zinc phosphate when used with dentin pretreatments. Conclusion. Controlled crown surface areas reduced the variation in strength values permitting high discrimination among retention values of desensitizer/cement combinations. In all but 1 combination, Gluma desensitizer significantly decreased crown retention. With resin cement and resin-modified glass ionomer, use of All-Bond 2 desensitizer significantly increased crown retention values. (J Prosthet Dent 2000;83: 459-65.).

Publication Information

Output type

Scholary Output:
Contribution to journal
Article
Peer-review

Original language

English (US)

Pages from-to (Number of pages)

Pages 459-465 (7 pages)

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (Volume 83, Issue 4)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 04/2000

Publication status

Published - 04/2000

ISSN

0022-3913

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 0034171182
  • PubMed: 10756297
  • ORCID: /0000-0003-1947-3337/work/54796719

Publication metrics

Metrics

SciVal
FWCI
2.08
SciVal
Author count
5
SciVal
citations
58
SciVal
Paper percentile
87
Scopus
citations
Fractional count
3
Fractional count
0.60
Fractional count
2
Fractional count
0.40
Fractional count
3
Fractional count
1

PlumX, opens in new tab

Citation count
66
Captures
63

Funding Details

Supported by the 1998 Tylman Grant from the American Academy of Prosthodontics.
FunderFunding numbers
AAFP
-