Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background Among the various mechanical and biological properties of luting cement, the most important are its resistance to disintegration, degradation, and stability in the oral cavity. The sorption and solubility of cement alter the mechanical properties by impeding the half-life of the filling. It also leads to variations in dimensions, discoloration, and margin breakage. It is, therefore, essential to choose a low-solubility cement since there is always an interaction between teeth and restorative margins. The aim of this study is to assess and compare the solubility and sorption values of three different luting cements in three liquid media. Materials and methods Three luting cements were used for the investigation. Disc-shaped specimens of the cement, which were of 10 mm diameter and 2 mm height, were prepared. The sample included a total of 126 disc-shaped specimens made up of three materials, glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin cement, and resin-modified GIC, which were used in three liquid media (14 of each material in each medium). Fourteen specimens of each material were placed in glass vials containing 20 ml of each medium: distilled water, artificial saliva, and carbonated water. The samples were then put in an incubator at 37 °C. The measurements and masses of the samples were documented on days one, three, seven, 14, 21, 28, and 35. The samples were taken out of the solution after five weeks and stored in a desiccator with calcium sulphate for another five weeks. The weight and dimensional changes were estimated on days one, three, seven, 14, 21, 28, and 35. The values of water sorption (W) and solubility (W) were estimated. To determine the mean and standard deviation of each cohort, descriptive statistics were employed. Utilizing the Shapiro-Wilkinson test, the normality was determined. An independent test was used to determine the difference between all pairs of groups, while one-way ANOVA, Dunn test, and post hoc analysis were used to establish the distinction between the three groups. Results One-way ANOVA showed that significant differences existed among the groups: resin cement showed the least sorption and solubility, resin-modified GIC showed the highest solubility in distilled water (0.40 ± 0.03), and GIC showed the highest solubility in both artificial saliva (0.36 ± 0.03) and carbonated water (0.04 ± 0.05). Conclusion Considering the experimental outcomes and the limitations of an in vitro investigation, it was concluded that in the complex setting of the oral environment, this selection procedure is crucial for maintaining mechanical strength and for the long lifespan of dental restorations.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10656749 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.47311 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!