Clinical and Technical Considerations of Luting Agents for Fixed Prosthodontics
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Journal of Dentistry Clinical and Technical Considerations of Luting Agents for Fixed Prosthodontics Guest Editors: Cornelis H. Pameijer, Per-Olof Glantz, and J. Anthony von Fraunhofer Clinical and Technical Considerations of Luting Agents for Fixed Prosthodontics International Journal of Dentistry Clinical and Technical Considerations of Luting Agents for Fixed Prosthodontics Guest Editors: Cornelis H. Pameijer, Per-Olof Glantz, and J. Anthony von Fraunhofer Copyright © 2012 Hindawi Publishing Corporation. All rights reserved. This is a special issue published in “International Journal of Dentistry.” All articles are open access articles distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Editorial Board Ali I. Abdalla, Egypt Nicholas Martin Girdler, UK Getulio Nogueira-Filho, Canada Jasim M. Albandar, USA Rosa H. Grande, Brazil A. B. M. Rabie, Hong Kong Eiichiro . Ariji, Japan Heidrun Kjellberg, Sweden Michael E. Razzoog, USA Ashraf F. Ayoub, UK Kristin Klock, Norway Stephen Richmond, UK John D. Bartlett, USA Manuel Lagravere, Canada Kamran Safavi, USA Marilia A. R. Buzalaf, Brazil Philip J. Lamey, UK L. P. Samaranayake, Hong Kong Francesco Carinci, Italy Daniel M. Laskin, USA Robin Seymour, UK Lim K. Cheung, Hong Kong Louis M. Lin, USA Andreas Stavropoulos, Denmark BrianW.Darvell,Kuwait A. D. Loguercio, Brazil Dimitris N. Tatakis, USA J. D. Eick, USA Martin Lorenzoni, Austria Shigeru Uno, Japan Annika Ekestubbe, Sweden Jukka H. Meurman, Finland Ahmad Waseem, UK Vincent Everts, The Netherlands Carlos A. Munoz-Viveros, USA Izzet Yavuz, Turkey Roland Frankenberger, Germany Toru Nikaido, Japan Contents Clinical and Technical Considerations of Luting Agents for Fixed Prosthodontics,CornelisH.Pameijer, Per-Olof Glantz, and J. Anthony von Fraunhofer Volume 2012, Article ID 565303, 2 pages Microtensile Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Luting Cements to Ceramics,TomokoAbo,ShigeruUno, Masahiro Yoshiyama, Toshimoto Yamada, and Nobuhiro Hanada Volume 2012, Article ID 278623, 5 pages Surface Hardness of Resin Cement Polymerized under Different Ceramic Materials, Pimmada Kesrak and Chalermpol Leevailoj Volume 2012, Article ID 317509, 5 pages Antibacterial Properties of Dental Luting Agents: Potential to Hinder the Development of Secondary Caries, Erik Unosson, Yanling Cai, Xiyuan Jiang, Jesper Lo¨of,¨ Ken Welch, and Hakan˚ Engqvist Volume 2012, Article ID 529495, 7 pages A Review of Luting Agents, Cornelis H. Pameijer Volume 2012, Article ID 752861, 7 pages Adhesion and Cohesion, J. Anthony von Fraunhofer Volume 2012, Article ID 951324, 8 pages Waiting Time for Coronal Preparation and the Influence of Different Cements on Tensile Strength of Metal Posts, Ilione Kruschewsky Costa Sousa Oliveira, Ynara Bosco de Oliveira Lima Arsati, Roberta Tarkany Basting, and Fabiana Mantovani Gomes Franc¸a Volume 2012, Article ID 785427, 6 pages Quantitative Evaluation by Glucose Diffusion of Microleakage in Aged Calcium Silicate-Based Open-Sandwich Restorations, S. Koubi, H. Elmerini, G. Koubi, H. Tassery, and J. Camps Volume 2012, Article ID 105863, 6 pages In Vivo Disintegration of Four Different Luting Agents, Deniz Gemalmaz, Cornelis H. Pameijer, Mark Latta, Ferah Kuybulu, and Toros Alcan Volume 2012, Article ID 831508, 6 pages Hindawi Publishing Corporation International Journal of Dentistry Volume 2012, Article ID 565303, 2 pages doi:10.1155/2012/565303 Editorial Clinical and Technical Considerations of Luting Agents for Fixed Prosthodontics Cornelis H. Pameijer,1 Per-Olof Glantz,2 and Anthony von Fraunhofer3 1 Department of Reconstructive Sciences, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030, USA 2 Faculty of Odontology, Malmo¨ University, 20506 Malmo,¨ Sweden 3 School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA Correspondence should be addressed to Cornelis H. Pameijer, [email protected] Received 29 May 2012; Accepted 29 May 2012 Copyright © 2012 Cornelis H. Pameijer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The selection of an appropriate luting agent for final The authors would like to thank the many reviewers cementation of fixed restorations is no longer an easy who participated in the evaluation of the twenty submitted decision. The numerous materials from which restorations manuscripts. Of these, eight manuscripts were accepted and can be fabricated demand a thorough knowledge of not are presented here. only the material(s) they are made of but also knowledge A comprehensive literature review by C. Pameijer high- of the properties of luting agents. No longer can zinc lights composition, physical properties, and clinical applica- phosphate cement be used for all fixed restorations that tions of luting agents since their inception late 1880s until need cementation, as has been the case since its inception, today with an introduction of the latest developments. A late 1800s, until the 1970s. With the introduction of new chart with clinical indications is included, which is intended restorative materials and clinical applications such as non- as a guide to selecting an appropriate luting agent. It should precious alloys, feldspathic veneers, all-ceramic restorations, be noted that the author pointed out that this chart is strictly zirconium, lithium disilicate, the demand for more suitable based on personal experience and research; much of which cements developed somewhat in tandem with new materials has been conducted by the author. and clinical techniques. As a result, today’s market is flooded T. Abo and coworkers compared the microtensile bond with cements, and more are being introduced on a regular strengths (µTBSs) of three self-adhesive luting cements and a basis. Even for the expert and researcher, the combination of control (Panavia F 2.0) between ceramics and resin cores and these cements with the large variety of restorative materials examined their relation to cement thickness of 25, 50, 100, or would be a daunting task to test, and frequently the clinician 200 µm. The three self-adhesive cements scored lower µTBSs has to hope that the choice is the proper one. than the control that required etching and a primer before This special issue presents a review of luting agents and cementation. A cement thickness of 50 or 100 µmtendedto attempts to bring the practitioner up to date with new induce the highest µTBS, which are clinical parameters that developments. Of particular promise in restorative dentistry are usually accepted in spite of the recommended 40 µm that are the bioactive luting agents that have sealing and reminer- is advocated by the American Dental Association. alizing potential. In this regard, a common misconception I. Costa Sousa Oliveira and coworkers assessed the is that a luting agent must have high retentive values of its effect post-cementation waiting time for core preparation own. The reality is that a luting agent in addition to being an of cemented cast posts and cores had on retention in the adhesive primarily acts as a seal or gasket to prevent bacteria root canal. They tested two different luting materials on sixty from penetrating the tooth-restoration interface. Retention extracted human canines. The post and cores were fabricated is primarily determined by the mechanical resistance and in cast nickelchromium and luted with zinc phosphate (ZP) geometry of the preparation. cement or resin cement. The specimens were divided into 2 International Journal of Dentistry 3groups(n = 10) according to the waiting time for core using Streptococcus mutans. Viable bacteria in direct contact preparation: tested without preparation (control), after 15 with the samples were determined with a metabolic assay minutes and after 1 week after the core cementation. A tensile containing resazurin. Furthermore, effect of F and pH load test was applied until failure. Significantly higher (P < was also evaluated. The results indicated that antibacterial 0.05) tensile strength values were obtained for ZP cement; properties in descending sequence were calcium aluminate however, core preparation and postcementation waiting time cement > Ceramir Crown & Bridge > and RelyXTM Unicem. did not affect the retention strength. The authors concluded KetacTM Cem, Harvard Cement, and the reference glass that ZP was the best material for intraradicular metal posts ionomer cement showed bacteria contents either higher cementation. It should be noted, however, that the results do than or not significantly different from the PMMA control. not necessarily apply to all metals that typically are used for Furthermore pH levels below 6.3 and above 9.0 were found post and core fabrication. to have negative effects on bacterial proliferation while the In an in vivo study by D. Gemalmaz and co-workers, more basic the cement was, the stronger the antibacterial disintegration of four luting agents was evaluated using a properties. These findings may explain tissue health around gold intraoral sample holder that had four holes of 1.4 mm crown margins of certain cements that have a high pH. diameter and 2 mm depth, which were filled with zinc In the J. von Fraunhofer paper, an in-depth discussion phosphate (Phosphate Kulzer), a glass ionomer (Ketac Cem), on adhesion and cohesion