Article: Post cementation sensitivity evaluation of glass Ionomer, zinc phosphate and resin modified glass Ionomer luting cements under class II inlays: An in vivo comparative study

Objective: This study aims to compare the patient-perceived post-cementation sensitivity of class II metal restorations preoperatively, immediately after cementation, one week after cementation and one month after cementation with (1) Glass Ionomer luting cement (2) Zinc Phosphate cement and (3) Resin-modified Glass Ionomer luting cement.

Materials And Methods: A total of 60 patients, irrespective of sex, in the age group of 15-50 years were selected and the teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 20 each. Twenty inlay cast restorations were cemented with three different luting cements. The criteria adapted to measure tooth sensitivity in the present study were objective examination for sensitivity. (1) Cold water test (2) Compressed air test and (3) Biting pressure test.

Results: The patients with restorations cemented with Resin-modified Glass ionomer demonstrated the least postoperative sensitivity when compared with Glass Ionomer and zinc phosphate cement at all different intervals of time evaluated by different tests.

Conclusion: The patients with restorations cemented with resin-modified Glass ionomer demonstrated the least postoperative sensitivity.

Citing Articles

Integrating Phosphate Enhances Biomineralization Effect of Methacrylate Cement in Vital Pulp Treatment with Improved Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells Stimulation.

Ryu J, Mangal U, Kwon J, Seo J, Byun S, Lee Y Adv Healthc Mater. 2024; 13(31):e2402397.

PMID: 39367544 PMC: 11650430. DOI: 10.1002/adhm.202402397.

Cement selection criteria for full coverage restorations: A comprehensive review of literature.

Ghodsi S, Arzani S, Shekarian M, Aghamohseni M J Clin Exp Dent. 2021; 13(11):e1154-e1161.

PMID: 34824703 PMC: 8601696. DOI: 10.4317/jced.58671.

References

1.

Knibbs P, Walls A . A laboratory and clinical evaluation of three dental luting cements. J Oral Rehabil. 1989; 16(5):467-73. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1989.tb01367.x. View

2.

DeSchepper E, Thrasher M, Thurmond B . Antibacterial effects of light-cured liners. Am J Dent. 1989; 2(3):74-6. View

3.

Phillips R, SWARTZ M, Lund M, Moore B, Vickery J . In vivo disintegration of luting cements. J Am Dent Assoc. 1987; 114(4):489-92. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1987.0093. View

4.

White S, Yu Z, Tom J, Sangsurasak S . In vivo microleakage of luting cements for cast crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1994; 71(4):333-8. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(94)90090-6. View

5.

Johnson G, Powell L, DeRouen T . Evaluation and control of post-cementation pulpal sensitivity: zinc phosphate and glass ionomer luting cements. J Am Dent Assoc. 1993; 124(11):38-46. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1993.0221. View

6.

Smith D, Ruse N . Acidity of glass ionomer cements during setting and its relation to pulp sensitivity. J Am Dent Assoc. 1986; 112(5):654-7. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1986.0069. View

7.

Mathis R, Ferracane J . Properties of a glass-ionomer/resin-composite hybrid material. Dent Mater. 1989; 5(5):355-8. DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(89)90130-9. View

8.

STANLEY H . Pulpal responses to ionomer cements--biological characteristics. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990; 120(1):25-9. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1990.0013. View

9.

DeSchepper E, White R, von der Lehr W . Antibacterial effects of glass ionomers. Am J Dent. 1989; 2(2):51-6. View

10.

Klausner L, Brandau H, CHARBENEAU G . Glass-ionomer cements in dental practice: a national survey. Oper Dent. 1989; 14(4):170-5. View

11.

McComb D . Retention of castings with glass ionomer cement. J Prosthet Dent. 1982; 48(3):285-8. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(82)90012-9. View

12.

Omar R . A comparative study of the retentive capacity of dental cementing agents. J Prosthet Dent. 1988; 60(1):35-40. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(88)90346-0. View

13.

MITCHEM J, Gronas D . Continued evaluation of the clinical solubility of luting cements. J Prosthet Dent. 1981; 45(3):289-91. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(81)90392-9. View

Post Cementation Sensitivity Evaluation of Glass Ionomer, Zinc Phosphate and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Luting Cements Under Class II Inlays: An in Vivo Comparative Study