Film thickness of crown disclosing material and its relevance to cementation.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Regardless of the type of indirect restoration being fabricated, optimizing fit at cementation is a challenge. Several disclosing agents have been recommended to identify intaglio surface contacts that may result in incomplete seating and poorly adapted margins. The International Organization for Standardization has established a standard of 25 µm for the maximum film thickness for water-based cements. To accurately predict the clinical behavior of a luting cement, the disclosing agents themselves should have a film thickness no greater than 25 µm. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the film thickness of 2 disclosing products, a spray-on powder (Occlude Indicator Marking Spray) and a silicone disclosing agent (Fit Checker). MATERIAL AND METHODS: The film thickness of the 2 disclosing products was determined by using optically flat glass cylinders according to the method set forth in International Organization for Standardization Standard 9917 for water-based cements. Because the silicone product is fast setting, the load was applied within 10 seconds of completing the mix. The spray-on product was allowed to dry before applying the load, in accordance with its intended clinical use. The film thickness of both products was determined with a load of 150 N applied for 30 seconds. Additional determinations were made for the silicone product at both 100 N and 50 N applied for 30 seconds and at 150 N applied for 90 seconds. An additional film thickness determination for the spray-on product was made with no load applied. The film thickness data for the various loads and intervals for the silicone product were analyzed with a 1-way ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test (α=.05). A t test (unequal variance, 2-tailed) was used to compare the spray-on and silicone products as measured at a load of 150 N applied for 30 seconds. RESULTS: The average film thickness of Fit Checker ranged from 16.7 to 23.7 µm, with the two 150-N groups significantly lower than the others, whereas that of Occlude was 67.7 µm unloaded and 48.4 µm when loaded. The film thickness of Fit Checker was significantly less than that of Occlude for the 150 N, 30-second group. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study design, Fit Checker had a film thickness that satisfied the 25-µm limit imposed on water-based luting cements in the International Organization for Standardization standard, whereas Occlude Spray did not.

Cytotoxicity of endodontic sealers after one year of aging in vitro.

The in vitro cytotoxic response to endodontic sealers was assessed for one year. AH-Plus (AHP), Epiphany (EPH), EndoRez (ER), Guttaflow (GF), InnoEndo (IN), and Pulp Canal Sealer (PCS) were exposed to mouse osteoblasts and human monocytes after curing, 52 weeks of aging, and after resurfacing post-aging; cellular response was estimated by succinate dehydrogenase (SDH) activity. The effect of materials on TNFα secretion from activated (LPS) and inactivated monocytes also was measured. Cell responses were compared with ANOVA and Tukey post hoc analysis (α = 0.05). Initially, all materials except GF suppressed osteoblastic SDH activity compared with Teflon (Tf) controls. SDH activity in cells exposed to some aged sealers improved significantly; but IN and ER remained cytotoxic. When aged materials were resurfaced then tested, AHP, ER, GF, and IN did not change. EPH and PCS were more toxic. Monocytes responded similarly to the osteoblasts. No endodontic sealer activated monocytic TNFα secretion (p > 0.05 vs. -LPS Tf-controls). LPS-activated monocytes exposed to unresurfaced AHP and IN significantly suppressed TNFα secretion. When activated monocytes were exposed to the resurfaced sealers, differential suppression of TNFα secretion was observed for three of the four sealers tested (EPH, IN, and PCS). The results suggest that long-term aging may be a useful adjunct to in vitro assessment of these materials.

Minimally retentive gold onlays: a six-year case report.

Partial veneer gold restorations, such as gold onlays, have changed little in preparation design over the past 40 years, as evidenced by textbooks that have long been in print. Such designs must have been based on the assumption that restorations would be luted with zinc phosphate cement but have not altered, despite the introduction of stronger luting cement classes, such as resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. It is well-established that both porcelain and base metal materials, which have been etched on the intaglio surface, can be combined with resin composite luting cements to produce restorations retained largely through adhesion. However, neither of these materials can equal the combination of minimal tooth reduction and margin adaptation that is possible with high noble gold restorative materials. Although high noble gold alloys cannot be etched, air abrasion of the intaglio surface of restorations likely improves micromechanical retention, but it is unknown whether this, along with a strong luting cement, is sufficient to stabilize high noble gold alloys in preparations with considerably less retention and resistance form than traditional designs.

Film thicknesses of recently introduced luting cements.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A luting cement must maintain a minimum film thickness over a sufficient period of time to allow seating of indirect restorations. The performance of newer luting cements in this regard has not been evaluated. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the film thicknesses of 6 luting cements, 2 resin-modified glass ionomer (FujiCEM and RelyX Luting Plus), 2 composite resin (Panavia 21 and RelyX ARC), and 2 self-adhesive resin (Maxcem and RelyX Unicem) cements, over 3 minutes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The film thickness (microm) of each cement (n=7) was determined at room temperature at 1, 2, and 3 minutes after the start of mixing, according to the testing method set forth in ISO Standard 9917. Means of all cements were compared at the 2-minute interval, and means at the 1- and 3-minute intervals for each were compared to the mean for the same cement at 2 minutes, using 1-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Except for 1 resin-modified material at 3 minutes, a point beyond its specified working time, all materials produced film thicknesses under 30 microm at 3 minutes and under 26 microm at 2 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: All of the materials tested meet the ISO standard of 25-microm maximum film thickness for up to 2 minutes after mixing.