EFFECT OF DIFFERENT LUTING CEMENTS ON FRACTURE RESISTANCE OF CERAMIC CROWNS
Main Article Content
Keywords
Ceramic crowns, fracture resistance, luting cement, resin cement, glass ionomer cement, CAD-CAM ceramics.
Abstract
Background:The long-term success of ceramic crowns depends not only on the ceramic material itself but also on the properties of the luting cement used for cementation. Different luting cements exhibit variations in bonding ability, mechanical strength, stress distribution, and marginal adaptation, all of which influence the fracture resistance of ceramic restorations. Resin cements have demonstrated superior adhesive properties and mechanical reinforcement compared with conventional glass ionomer cements. However, limited comparative evidence exists regarding the influence of different luting agents on the fracture resistance of ceramic crowns.
Aim:To evaluate and compare the effect of different luting cements on the fracture resistance of ceramic crowns.
Materials and Methods:This in vitro experimental study was conducted on 60 extracted human premolars. Standardized tooth preparation was performed for all-ceramic crowns. Ceramic crowns were fabricated using CAD-CAM lithium disilicate ceramic systems. Samples were randomly divided into three groups based on the luting cement used:
- Group I: Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC)
- Group II: Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC)
- Group III: Dual-Cure Resin Cement
Each group consisted of 20 specimens. Cementation procedures were performed according to manufacturer recommendations. Thermocycling was carried out to simulate oral conditions. Fracture resistance testing was performed using a universal testing machine with compressive loading until catastrophic failure occurred. Mean fracture resistance values were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests.
Results:The highest mean fracture resistance was observed in Group III (dual-cure resin cement) followed by Group II (RMGIC) and Group I (conventional GIC). Mean fracture resistance values were:
- Group I: 890.4 ± 95.2 N
- Group II: 1125.6 ± 110.8 N
- Group III: 1458.3 ± 125.4 N
Statistically significant differences were observed among all groups (p < 0.001). Resin cement demonstrated approximately 63.8% greater fracture resistance compared with conventional GIC.
Conclusion:The type of luting cement significantly influences the fracture resistance of ceramic crowns. Dual-cure resin cement provided the highest fracture resistance, suggesting superior reinforcement of ceramic restorations. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement demonstrated intermediate performance, whereas conventional glass ionomer cement exhibited the lowest fracture resistance values.
References
2. Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC, Sorensen JA, Schumacher M, Marx R, Gernet W. In vitro shear bond strength of cementing agents to fixed prosthodontic restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92(3):265-273. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.06.027
3. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Crispin BJ, Brackett WW, Davis SH, Retief DH. Dental luting agents: A review of current literature. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;80(3):280-301. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70128-3
4. Sidhu SK, Nicholson JW, Watson TF, Banerjee A, Murray PE, Mount GJ. Glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: A sticky subject? Aust Dent J. 2011;56(Suppl 1):23-30. doi:10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01293.x
5. Al-Wahadni A, Hussey D, Grey N, Hatamleh M, O’Donnell M, Franks K. Fracture resistance of aluminium oxide and lithium disilicate-based crowns using different luting cements. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2009;10(2):51-58. doi:10.5005/jcdp-10-2-51
6. Wilson AD, Kent BE, McLean JW, Prosser HJ, Powis DR, Crisp S. Glass ionomer cements and their clinical applications. J Appl Chem Biotechnol. 1976;26(11):623-630. doi:10.1002/jctb.5020261101
7. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M, Ferrari M, Davidson CL, Heymann HO. Resin-ceramic bonding: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89(3):268-274. doi:10.1067/mpr.2003.50
8. Bindl A, Mörmann WH, Lüthy H, Schärer P, Göhring TN, Roos M. Strength and fracture pattern of monolithic CAD/CAM-generated posterior crowns. Dent Mater. 2006;22(1):29-36. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.009
9. Attia A, Kern M, Strub JR, Frankenberger R, Gresnigt M, Magne P. Fracture resistance of all-ceramic crowns cemented with different adhesive systems. Dent Mater. 2011;27(3):e25-e32. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.015
10. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR, Phillips RW, Chiayi S, Powers JM. Phillips’ science of dental materials. 12th ed. St Louis: Elsevier; 2013. doi:10.1016/B978-1-4377-2418-9.00001-0
11. Conrad HJ, Seong WJ, Pesun IJ, Hodges JS, Donovan TE, Valandro LF. Current ceramic materials and systems with clinical recommendations. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;98(5):389-404. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60124-3
12. Mörmann WH, Bindl A, Lüthy H, Rathke A, Roos M, Göhring TN. Effects of preparation and luting system on fracture resistance of CAD/CAM ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 2006;19(6):593-599. doi:10.11607/ijp.1794
13. Burke FJT, Lucarotti PSK, Holder RL, Crowley C, O’Sullivan E, Wilson NHF. Outcome of crowns and veneers placed in general dental practice. J Dent. 2010;38(10):786-798. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2010.06.007
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Dr. Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Assistant Professor, Department Prosthodontics Crown & Bridge And Implantology, Maitri College Of Dentistry And Research Centre Durg, Anjora, Chhattisgarh.
