Retention of gold alloy crowns cemented with traditional and resin cements.

The aim of this study was to measure in vitro retention of cast gold crowns cemented with traditional and resin cements. Forty-eight human molars were prepared on a lathe to produce complete crown preparations with a consistent taper and split into six groups, eight crowns in each group. Crowns were cast in a high-gold alloy and then cemented. After 24 hours, the retention force (N) was recorded and mean values were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and the Fisher post-hoc least significant difference (PLSD) multiple comparisons test (a = .05). Failure sites were examined under 3100 magnification and recorded. Mean values (SD) for each group in increasing order of retention force were: Harvard Cement: 43 N (27), TempoCem: 59 N (16), PermaCem Dual: 130 N (42), RelyX Luting Cement: 279 N (26), Contax and PermaCem Dual: 286 N (38), and TempoCem with Contax and PermaCem Dual: 340 N (14). The Fisher PLSD interval (P = .05) for comparing cements was 29 N. Zinc-phosphate cement and provisional resin cements had the lowest retention forces. Resin cement with a bonding agent and the hybrid-ionomer cement had similar retention forces. Resin cement with a bonding agent applied after use of a provisional resin cement had a significantly higher retention force than the other cements tested.

Two-year clinical evaluation of a posterior resin composite using a fourth- and fifth-generation bonding agent.

This study evaluated the clinical performance of a posterior resin composite used with a fourth- and fifth-generation bonding agent. Sixty-two Class I and II restorations were placed with half the restorations restored with Gluma Solid Bond (a fourth-generation bonding system, or total etch two-step system) and the other half restored with Gluma Comfort Bond and Desensitizer (a fifth-generation bonding system, or total etch one-step system). Solitaire 2 was used as the restorative material for all restorations. The bonding systems and resin composite were used according to the manufacturer's instructions and all procedures were performed with rubber dam isolation. All restorations were evaluated at baseline, six months and one and two years. A modified USPHS scale was used to evaluate the restorations for marginal discoloration, recurrent caries, anatomic form, marginal adaptation and proximal contact. Statistical analysis revealed that at two years no significant differences were found between the two bonding agents. Overall, Solitaire 2 performed well clinically whether Gluma Solid Bond or Gluma Comfort Bond and Desensitizer was used. It was thus concluded that Solitaire 2 functions successfully when used as a posterior restorative material for at least two years.

How storage and mixing affect a resin-modified glass ionomer.

This study investigates how the storage time and mixing speed of an older (20+ years old), common brand triturator affect the working time of a resin-modified glass ionomer restorative material. To achieve consistent working times, the correct mixing speed should be used, especially for material near its expiration date.