Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 Aug;4(3):127-33.
doi: 10.4047/jap.2012.4.3.127. Epub 2012 Aug 28.

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

Affiliations

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

Sonune Shital Jalandar et al. J Adv Prosthodont. 2012 Aug.

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 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 ± 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.

Keywords: Complete cast crowns; Dentin Hypersensitivity; Desensitizing agents; Luting agents; Retention.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Tooth attached to analyzing rod.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Customized clamp to orient handpiece on the surveyor.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Numbered and finished wax pattern.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Completed castings in nickel-chromium alloy.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Desensitizing agents used in the study.
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Vertical force applied on the crown.
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Failure categories of three luting cements.

References

    1. Johnston JF, Dykema RW, Goodacre CJ, Phillips RW. Johnston's modern practice in fixed prosthodontics. 4th ed. Philadelphia: WB saunders Co.; 1986.
    1. Addy M. Etiology and clinical implications of dentine hypersensitivity. Dent Clin North Am. 1990;34:503–514. - PubMed
    1. Johnson RH, Zulqar-Nain BJ, Koval JJ. The effectiveness of an electro-ionizing toothbrush in the control of dentinal hypersensitivity. J Periodontol. 1982;53:353–359. - PubMed
    1. Richardson D, Tao L, Pashley DH. Dentin permeability: effects of crown preparation. Int J Prosthodont. 1991;4:219–225. - PubMed
    1. Zaimoglu A, Aydin AK. An evaluation of smear layer with various desensitizing agents after tooth preparation. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68:450–457. - PubMed