International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  18 (2025)
Volume  17 (2024)
Volume  16 (2023)
Volume  15 (2022)
Volume  14 (2021)
Volume  13 (2020)
Volume  12 (2019)
Volume  11 (2018)
Volume  10 (2017)
Volume  9 (2016)
Volume  8 (2015)
Volume  7 (2014)
Volume  6 (2013)
Volume  5 (2012)
Volume  4 (2011)
Volume  3 (2010)
Volume  2 (2009)
Volume  1 (2008)
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

An In Vitro Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of a New Dual-cure, Universal, Bioactive Luting Cement

Saleh A Shams, N. Sridhar, Shruti Shetty

Keywords : Dental enamel, Flexural strength, Luting cement, Shear bond strength

Citation Information : Shams SA, Sridhar N, Shetty S. An In Vitro Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of a New Dual-cure, Universal, Bioactive Luting Cement. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (8):887-891.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2914

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 23-09-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim and background: The aim of this study was to determine the properties of a new luting cement, BioCem®, by evaluating shear bond strength (SBS) and flexural strength (FS). Materials and methods: A total of 60 extracted deciduous molars were included in this study. Samples were divided into two groups: Group I, Fuji I® (n = 30), and group II, BioCem® (n = 30). Each tooth was embedded in one acrylic block, such that the flattened enamel surface was exposed. Cylinders of 6 mm diameter and 8 mm height were prepared and evaluated for SBS using a universal testing machine. Ten rods of 25 × 2 × 2 mm of each material were prepared using a custom mold to evaluate the FS using a universal testing machine. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 was used for statistical analyses. Intergroup analysis was performed using an independent sample t-test. Results: Upon comparing the SBS values of the luting agents and prepared enamel surfaces, glass ionomer cement (GIC) displayed the highest value, while BioCem® displayed the lowest. Upon comparing the FS values of the luting agents and prepared enamel surfaces, BioCem® performed better than GIC. Conclusion: BioCem® may be used as a luting agent for the cementation of stainless steel crowns (SSCs) on primary teeth. Clinical significance: BioCem®, a recently developed luting cement, may be used for cementing SSCs to the surfaces of prepared deciduous teeth; it exhibits significantly higher FS but lower SBS than that of GIC.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Mathewson RJ, Primosch RE. Fundamentals of Pediatric Dentistry, 3rd edition. Chicago: Quintessence Pub Co.; 2014. pp. 214–219.
  2. Chávez-Lozada J, Urquía-Morales C. In-vitro evaluation of bond strength of four self-etching cements. Acta Odontol Latinoam 2017;30:101–108.
  3. Prabhu S, Krishnamoorthy SH, Sathyaprasad S, et al. Gingival, oral hygiene and periodontal status of the teeth restored with stainless steel crown: a prospective study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2018;36(3):273–278. DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_227_17
  4. Virupaxi S, Pai R, Mandroli P. Retentive strength of luting cements for stainless steel crowns: a systematic review. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2020;38(1):2–7. DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_313_19
  5. Waly AS, Souror YR, Yousief SA, et al. Pediatric stainless-steel crown cementation finite element study. Eur J Dent 2021;15(1):77–83. DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1715915
  6. Schmoeckel J, Gorseta K, Splieth CH, et al. How to intervene in the caries process: early childhood caries - a systematic review. Caries Res 2020;54:102–112. DOI: 10.1159/000504335
  7. De Farias AL, Rojas-Gualdrón DF, Mejía JD, et al. Survival of stainless-steel crowns and composite resin restorations in molars affected by molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH). Int J Paediatr Dent 2022;32:240–250. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12849
  8. Anusavice KJ. Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials, 12th edition. St Louis: Saunders; 2003. pp. 320–328.
  9. Cassina G, Fischer J, Rohr N. Correlation between flexural and indirect tensile strength of resin composite cements. Head Face Med 2016;12:29–34. DOI: 10.1186/s13005-016-0128-7
  10. Chisini LA, Collares K, Cademartori MG, et al. Restorations in primary teeth: a systematic review on survival and reasons for failures. Int J Paediatr Dent 2018;28:123–139. DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12346
  11. Halawany HS, Salama F, Jacob V, et al. A survey of pediatric dentists’ caries-related treatment decisions and restorative modalities - a web-based survey. Saudi Dent J 2017;29:66–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2017.03.001
  12. Crowder L. Management options of early childhood caries. Evid Based Dent 2021;22:106–107. DOI: 10.1038/s41432-021-0197-8
  13. Ludovichetti FS, Stellini E, Signoriello AG, et al. Zirconia vs. stainless steel pediatric crowns: a literature review. Minerva Dent Oral Sci 2021;70:112–118. DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6329.20.04432-5
  14. Agrawal R, Khanduja R, Singhal M, et al. Clinical evaluation of stainless steel crown versus zirconia crown in primary molars: an in vivo study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022;15:15–19. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2134
  15. Tyas MJ. Clinical evaluation of glass-ionomer cement restorations. J Appl Oral Sci 2006;14:10–13. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572006000700003
  16. Wilson AD, McLean W. Glass-Ionomer Cements. Chicago: Quintessence Pub Co.; 1988. pp. 221–227.
  17. Parisay I, Khazaei Y. Evaluation of retentive strength of four luting cements with stainless steel crowns in primary molars: an in vitro study. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2018;15:201–207.
  18. Somani R, Jaidka S, Singh DJ, et al. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of various glass ionomer cements to dentin of primary teeth: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(3):192–196. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1362
  19. Sidhu SK. Glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: a sticky subject. Aus Dent J 2011;56:23–30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01293.x
  20. Berg JH, Croll TP. Glass ionomer restorative cement systems: an update. Pediatr Dent 2015;37:116–124.
  21. Walls AWG, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The use of glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cements in the deciduous dentition. Br Dent J 1988;165:13–17. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4806480
  22. Peixoto AC, Bicalho AA, Isolan CP, et al. Bonding of adhesive luting agents to caries-affected dentin induced by a microcosm biofilm model. Oper Dent 2015;40:E102–E110. DOI: 10.2341/14-169-L
  23. Korkmaz Y, Gurgan S, Firat E, et al. Shear bond strength of three different nano-restorative materials to dentin. Oper Dent 2010;35:50–57. DOI: 10.2341/09-051-L
  24. Faridi MA, Khabeer A, Haroon S, Flexural strength of glass carbomer cement and conventional glass ionomer cement stored in different storage media over time. Med Princ Pract 2018;27:372–377. DOI: 10.1159/000489781
  25. Pace LL, Humme SK, Marker VA, et al. Comparison of the flexural strength of five adhesive resin cements. J Prosthodont 2007;16:18–24. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00151.x
  26. Moberg M, Brewster J, Nicholson J, et al. Physical property investigation of contemporary glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 2018;11:31–45.
  27. Tuloglu N, Akay CG, Bayrak S. Shear bond strength of zirconia ceramic to the primary tooth dentin. Niger J Clin Pract 2020;23:792–797. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_567_19
  28. Stepp P, Morrow BR, Wells M, et al. Microleakage of cements in prefabricated zirconia crowns. Pediatr Dent 2018;40(2):136–139.
  29. Pathak S, Shashibhushan KK, Poornima P, et al. In vitro evaluation of stainless steel crowns cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer and two new self-adhesive resin cements. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9:197–200. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1363
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.