Shear bond strength of resin cements to both ceramic and dentin

Stewart, Gregory P.; Jain, Poonam; Hodges, James S.

doi:10.1067/mpr.2002.128034

Cited by 104 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the bond strength of Panavia 21 was in agreement with results of other studies applying an analogous test design [12,29,30]. Furthermore, after water storage in the present study RelyX ARC exhibited a similar bond strength compared to another similar study [12].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shear bond strength of resin cements to human dentin

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…In order to establish a successful bonding to tooth substance or materials like ceramics, appropriate pre-treatment methods have to be applied [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shear bond strength of resin cements to human dentin

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Glass-ceramic reconstructions must be adhesively cemented and by using resin cements, the stability and the clinical long-term success are improved [5][6][7][8]. Resin cements chemically bond to both the ceramic substrate as well as the tooth substance, and thereby reinforce the tooth-reconstruction complex [5,6,[9][10][11][12][13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Higher bond strength with self-adhesive resin cements combined with Gluma Desensitizer was achieved than with conventional resin cements (Panavia21) combined with Gluma Desensitizer [31]. The conventional resin cement, Panavia21, shows excellent bond strength to dentin [8,32]. It has been shown that when Panavia21 with self-adhesive ED Primer was combined with Gluma Desensitizer, a significant reduction 5 of the shear bond strength values occurred [31,33,34].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Gluma Desensitizer on the tensile strength of zirconia crowns bonded to dentin: an in vitro study

Stawarczyk

Hartmann²,

Hartmann³

et al. 2011

Clin Oral Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study tested the impact of Gluma Desensitizer on the tensile strength of zirconia crowns bonded to dentin. Human teeth were prepared and randomly divided into six groups (N = 144, n = 24 per group). For each tooth, a zirconia crown was manufactured. The zirconia crowns were cemented with: (1) Panavia21 (PAN), (2) Panavia21 combined with Gluma Desensitizer (PAN-G), (3) RelyX Unicem (RXU), (4) RelyX Unicem combined with Gluma Desensitizer (RXU-G), (5) G-Cem (GCM) and (6) GCem combined with Gluma Desensitizer (GCM-G). The initial tensile strength was measured in half (n = 12) of each group and the other half (n = 12) subjected to a chewing machine (1.2 Mio, 49 N, 5°C/50°C). The cemented crowns were pulled in a Universal Testing Machine (1 mm/min, Zwick Z010) until failure occurred and tensile strength was calculated. Data were analyzed with one-way and two-way ANOVA followed by a post hoc Scheffé test, t test and Kaplan-Meier analysis with a Breslow-Gehan analysis test ( = 0.05). After the chewing simulation, the self-adhesive resin cements combined with Gluma Desensitizer showed significantly higher tensile strength (RXU-G, 12.8 ± 4.3 MPa; GCM-G, 13.4 ± 6.2 MPa) than PAN (7.3 ± 1.7 MPa) and PAN-G (0.9 ± 0.6). Within the groups, PAN, PAN-G and RXU resulted in significantly lower values when compared to the initial tensile strength; the values of all other test groups were stable. In this study, self-adhesive resin cements combined with Gluma Desensitizer reached better long-term stability compared to PAN and PAN-G after chewing simulation.

show abstract

“…Glass-ceramic fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs) must be adhesively cemented, and by using resin cements, the stability and the clinical long-term successes are improved [1][2][3][4]. Resin cements not only improve the retention of dental restorations but also exhibit low solubility and microleakage in the oral environment compared with traditional cements, such as glass-ionomer or zinc phosphate cement [5][6][7][8][9][10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of bond strength of resin cements using different general-purpose statistical software packages for two-parameter Weibull statistics

Roos

Stawarczyk

2012

Dental Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated and compared Weibull parameters of resin bond strength values using six different general-purpose statistical software packages for two-parameter Weibull distribution. METHODS: Two-hundred human teeth were randomly divided into 4 groups (n=50), prepared and bonded on dentin according to the manufacturers' instructions using the following resin cements: (i) Variolink (VAN, conventional resin cement), (ii) Panavia21 (PAN, conventional resin cement), (iii) RelyX Unicem (RXU, self-adhesive resin cement) and (iv) G-Cem (GCM, self-adhesive resin cement). Subsequently, all specimens were stored in water for 24h at 37°C. Shear bond strength was measured and the data were analyzed using Anderson-Darling goodness-of-fit (MINITAB 16) and two-parameter Weibull statistics with the following statistical software packages: Excel 2011, SPSS 19, MINITAB 16, R 2.12.1, SAS 9.1.3. and STATA 11.2 (p 0.05). Additionally, the three-parameter Weibull was fitted using MNITAB 16. RESULTS: Two-parameter Weibull calculated with MINITAB and STATA can be compared using an omnibus test and using 95% CI. In SAS only 95% CI were directly obtained from the output. R provided no estimates of 95% CI. In both SAS and R the global comparison of the characteristic bond strength among groups is provided by means of the Weibull regression. EXCEL and SPSS provided no default information about 95% CI and no significance test for the comparison of Weibull parameters among the groups. In summary, conventional resin cement VAN showed the highest Weibull modulus and characteristic bond strength. SIGNIFICANCE: There are discrepancies in the Weibull statistics depending on the software package and the estimation method. The information content in the default output provided by the software packages differs to very high extent. AbstractObjectives: This study evaluated and compared Weibull parameters of resin bond strength values using six different general-purpose statistical software packages for two-parameter Weibull distribution. Methods: Two-hundred human teeth were randomly divided into 4 groups (n=50), prepared and bonded on dentin according to the manufacturers' instructions using the following resin cements: i) Variolink (VAN, conventional resin cement), ii) Panavia21 (PAN, conventional resin cement), iii) RelyX Unicem (RXU, self-adhesive resin cement) and iv) G-Cem (GCM, selfadhesive resin cement). Subsequently, all specimens were stored in water for 24 h at 37°C. Shear bond strength was measured and the data were analysed using

show abstract

Shear bond strength of resin cements to both ceramic and dentin

Cited by 104 publications

References 10 publications

Shear bond strength of resin cements to human dentin

Shear bond strength of resin cements to human dentin

Impact of Gluma Desensitizer on the tensile strength of zirconia crowns bonded to dentin: an in vitro study

Evaluation of bond strength of resin cements using different general-purpose statistical software packages for two-parameter Weibull statistics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About