A PHP Error was encountered

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

A Comparative Evaluation of the Bonding Strength, Marginal Adaptation, and Microleakage of Dental Cements in Prosthodontics: An In Vitro Comparative Study. | LitMetric

Background: The primary function of dental cement is to seal and support prosthodontic restorative materials. Proper selection of the dental cement contributes to the clinical success of the restoration.

Methods: A total of 166 molar tooth samples were prepared to simulate the type of tooth commonly found in prosthodontic practice. Each sample was restored using one of the tested dental cement materials employing a prestabilized methodology. The performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (GC Fuji PLUS Capsule, GC America, Alsip, IL), zinc phosphate cement (ZPC) (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC), and resin cement (RC) (RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE, Saint Paul, MN) in bonding strength, marginal adaptation, and microleakage was evaluated and compared. The bonding strength, marginal adaptation, and microgroove were tested using specific established methodologies. The outcomes were then analyzed using statistical analyses for means and standard deviations to compare different types of dental cement.

Results: The total outcome shows that the highest bonding strength with the highest mean was the resin cement, rating 24.8 MPa, followed by RMGIC and ZPC at 20.5 and 18.9 MPa, respectively. The marginal adaptation scores indicate that RC had the highest score at a mean of 4, followed by ZPC at 3.2 and RMGIC at 2.5. The dye penetration measurements in millimeters revealed that ZPC had a penetration of 0.31 mm, RMGIC had a penetration of 0.25 mm, and RC had the least penetration at 0.20 mm. The results of the statistical data analysis show significant differences between the dental cements in bonding strength and marginal adaptation.

Conclusion: In conclusion, resin cement demonstrated superior performance in bonding strength, marginal adaptation, and resistance to microleakage compared to RMGIC and zinc phosphate cement. These findings highlight the importance of selecting resin cement for achieving optimal clinical outcomes in prosthodontic restorations.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11346805PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.65534DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bonding strength
24
strength marginal
20
marginal adaptation
20
resin cement
16
dental cement
12
cement
10
adaptation microleakage
8
dental cements
8
zinc phosphate
8
phosphate cement
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!