Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2012.4.3.127

Comparison of effect of desensitizing agents on the retention of crowns cemented with luting agents: an in vitro study  

Jalandar, Sonune Shital (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College & Hospital)
Pandharinath, Dange Shankar (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College & Hospital)
Arun, Khalikar (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College & Hospital)
Smita, Vaidya (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College & Hospital)
Publication Information
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics / v.4, no.3, 2012 , pp. 127-133 More about this Journal
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 $GLUMA^{(R)}$ 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. RESULTS. Resin modified glass ionomer cement exhibited the highest retentive strength and all dentin treatments resulted in significantly different retentive values (In Kg.): GLUMA ($49.02{\pm}3.32$) > Control ($48.61{\pm}3.54$) > Tooth mousse ($48.34{\pm}2.94$). Retentive strength for glass ionomer cement were GLUMA ($41.14{\pm}2.42$) > Tooth mousse ($40.32{\pm}3.89$) > Control ($39.09{\pm}2.80$). For zinc phosphate cement the retentive strength were lowest GLUMA ($27.92{\pm}3.20$) > Control ($27.69{\pm}3.39$) > Tooth mousse ($25.27{\pm}4.60$). CONCLUSION. The use of $GLUMA^{(R)}$ 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.
Keywords
Dentin Hypersensitivity; Desensitizing agents; Retention; Complete cast crowns; Luting agents;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Arrais CA, Chan DC, Giannini M. Effects of desensitizing agents on dentinal tubule occlusion. J Appl Oral Sci 2004;12:144-8.   DOI
2 Johnston JF, Dykema RW, Goodacre CJ, Phillips RW. Johnston's modern practice in fixed prosthodontics. 4th ed. Philadelphia: WB saunders Co.; 1986.
3 Addy M. Etiology and clinical implications of dentine hypersensitivity. Dent Clin North Am 1990;34:503-14.
4 Johnson RH, Zulqar-Nain BJ, Koval JJ. The effectiveness of an electro-ionizing toothbrush in the control of dentinal hypersensitivity. J Periodontol 1982;53:353-9.   DOI
5 Richardson D, Tao L, Pashley DH. Dentin permeability: effects of crown preparation. Int J Prosthodont 1991;4:219-25.
6 Zaimoglu A, Aydin AK. An evaluation of smear layer with various desensitizing agents after tooth preparation. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:450-7.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Kaufman EG, Coelho AB, Colin L. Factors influencing the retention of cemented gold castings. J Prosthet Dent 1961;11:486-502.
8 Malone WFP, Koth DL. Tylman's theory and practice for fixed prosthodontics. 8th ed. St. Louis: Ishiyaku Euroamerica; 1989.
9 Yim NH, Rueggeberg FA, Caughman WF, Gardner FM, Pashley DH. Effect of dentin desensitizers and cementing agents on retention of full crowns using standardized crown preparations. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:459-65.   DOI   ScienceOn
10 Johnson GH, Hazelton LR, Bales DJ, Lepe X. The effect of a resinbased sealer on crown retention for three types of cement. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:428-35.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Palacios RP, Johnson GH, Phillips KM, Raigrodski AJ. Retention of zirconium oxide ceramic crowns with three types of cement. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96:104-14.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Kern M, Kleimeier B, Schaller HG, Strub JR. Clinical comparison of postoperative sensitivity for a glass ionomer and a zinc phosphate luting cement. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75:159-62.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Bebermeyer RD, Berg JH. Comparison of patient-perceived postcementation sensitivity with glass-ionomer and zinc phosphate cements. Quintessence Int 1994;25:209-14.
14 Mazzaoui SA, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ, Dashper SG, Eakins D, Reynolds EC. Incorporation of casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate into a glass-ionomer cement. J Dent Res 2003;82:914-8.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Burwell A. Tubule occlusion of a NovaMin-containing dentrifrice compared to Recaldent-containing dentrifice-a Remin/Demin study in vitro. NovaMin Research Report; NovaMin Technology Inc.: 2006.
16 Swift EJ Jr, Lloyd AH, Felton DA. The effect of resin desensitizing agents on crown retention. J Am Dent Assoc 1997;128:195-200.   DOI
17 Johnson GH, Lepe X, Bales DJ. Crown retention with use of a 5% glutaraldehyde sealer on prepared dentin. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:671-6.   DOI   ScienceOn