Curing potential of dual-polymerizable resin cements in simulated clinical situations

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

42 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Statement of problem. Little is known about the ability of dual-polymerizable resin cements to polymerize when they are used in various clinical scenarios. Purpose. This study was conducted to determine whether any of 6 commercially available dual-polymerizable resin cements should be classified as an "all-purpose" resin cement. Material and methods. Chemical conversion values (C=C converted to C-C, or the extent of the curing reaction) of 6 commercially available dual-polymerizable resin cements were determined with infrared spectroscopy in 5 clinically relevant scenarios. Scenarios included: using each cement in a dual-polymerizable mode (mixing of 2 pastes); light polymerizing curing through Mylar sheets (dual-Mylar), which served as the control; light polymerizing through 3-mm porcelain (dual-3 mm); and no exposure to light (dual-no light). The single-component light-polymerizable product was also tested as follows: exposed directly through Mylar (light-Mylar) or exposed through 3 mm of porcelain (light-3 mm). Results. For each product, dual-Mylar treatment yielded the highest conversion value of all treatments (control for each product). For all products, dual-3 mm conversion was at least 97% of control and equivalent to control, with the exception of Lute-It!. Dual-no light conversion was less than control treatment but at least 86% of control for all products except for Variolink II (62% of control). For all products in dual-no light mode, except Choice and Variolink II, conversion was at least equal to the light-Mylar values. Only 1 product (Variolink II) did not demonstrate increased conversion values for dual-Mylar compared with light-Mylar treatments. For most other products (Calibra, Insure, and Lute-It!), conversion values for light-3 mm were significantly less than for light-Mylar. Conversion values for Nexus, Choice, and Variolink II were equivalent between light-Mylar and light-3 mm treatments. Conclusion. The choice of a dual-polymerizable cement should be based on its intended use because not all products polymerize adequately in every clinical situation. Although no cement met the stated criteria for an "all-purpose" cement, those tested did produce a range of product-specific results.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)479-484
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume85
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2001

Fingerprint

Resin Cements
Light
Dental Porcelain
Lavsan

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

Curing potential of dual-polymerizable resin cements in simulated clinical situations. / Caughman, W. Frank; Chan, Daniel C.N.; Rueggeberg, Frederick A.

In: Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 85, No. 5, 05.2001, p. 479-484.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{01ace34046ec40d6a36232ac667e0677,
title = "Curing potential of dual-polymerizable resin cements in simulated clinical situations",
abstract = "Statement of problem. Little is known about the ability of dual-polymerizable resin cements to polymerize when they are used in various clinical scenarios. Purpose. This study was conducted to determine whether any of 6 commercially available dual-polymerizable resin cements should be classified as an {"}all-purpose{"} resin cement. Material and methods. Chemical conversion values (C=C converted to C-C, or the extent of the curing reaction) of 6 commercially available dual-polymerizable resin cements were determined with infrared spectroscopy in 5 clinically relevant scenarios. Scenarios included: using each cement in a dual-polymerizable mode (mixing of 2 pastes); light polymerizing curing through Mylar sheets (dual-Mylar), which served as the control; light polymerizing through 3-mm porcelain (dual-3 mm); and no exposure to light (dual-no light). The single-component light-polymerizable product was also tested as follows: exposed directly through Mylar (light-Mylar) or exposed through 3 mm of porcelain (light-3 mm). Results. For each product, dual-Mylar treatment yielded the highest conversion value of all treatments (control for each product). For all products, dual-3 mm conversion was at least 97{\%} of control and equivalent to control, with the exception of Lute-It!. Dual-no light conversion was less than control treatment but at least 86{\%} of control for all products except for Variolink II (62{\%} of control). For all products in dual-no light mode, except Choice and Variolink II, conversion was at least equal to the light-Mylar values. Only 1 product (Variolink II) did not demonstrate increased conversion values for dual-Mylar compared with light-Mylar treatments. For most other products (Calibra, Insure, and Lute-It!), conversion values for light-3 mm were significantly less than for light-Mylar. Conversion values for Nexus, Choice, and Variolink II were equivalent between light-Mylar and light-3 mm treatments. Conclusion. The choice of a dual-polymerizable cement should be based on its intended use because not all products polymerize adequately in every clinical situation. Although no cement met the stated criteria for an {"}all-purpose{"} cement, those tested did produce a range of product-specific results.",
author = "Caughman, {W. Frank} and Chan, {Daniel C.N.} and Rueggeberg, {Frederick A.}",
year = "2001",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1067/mpr.2001.114842",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "85",
pages = "479--484",
journal = "Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry",
issn = "0022-3913",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Curing potential of dual-polymerizable resin cements in simulated clinical situations

AU - Caughman, W. Frank

AU - Chan, Daniel C.N.

AU - Rueggeberg, Frederick A.

PY - 2001/5

Y1 - 2001/5

N2 - Statement of problem. Little is known about the ability of dual-polymerizable resin cements to polymerize when they are used in various clinical scenarios. Purpose. This study was conducted to determine whether any of 6 commercially available dual-polymerizable resin cements should be classified as an "all-purpose" resin cement. Material and methods. Chemical conversion values (C=C converted to C-C, or the extent of the curing reaction) of 6 commercially available dual-polymerizable resin cements were determined with infrared spectroscopy in 5 clinically relevant scenarios. Scenarios included: using each cement in a dual-polymerizable mode (mixing of 2 pastes); light polymerizing curing through Mylar sheets (dual-Mylar), which served as the control; light polymerizing through 3-mm porcelain (dual-3 mm); and no exposure to light (dual-no light). The single-component light-polymerizable product was also tested as follows: exposed directly through Mylar (light-Mylar) or exposed through 3 mm of porcelain (light-3 mm). Results. For each product, dual-Mylar treatment yielded the highest conversion value of all treatments (control for each product). For all products, dual-3 mm conversion was at least 97% of control and equivalent to control, with the exception of Lute-It!. Dual-no light conversion was less than control treatment but at least 86% of control for all products except for Variolink II (62% of control). For all products in dual-no light mode, except Choice and Variolink II, conversion was at least equal to the light-Mylar values. Only 1 product (Variolink II) did not demonstrate increased conversion values for dual-Mylar compared with light-Mylar treatments. For most other products (Calibra, Insure, and Lute-It!), conversion values for light-3 mm were significantly less than for light-Mylar. Conversion values for Nexus, Choice, and Variolink II were equivalent between light-Mylar and light-3 mm treatments. Conclusion. The choice of a dual-polymerizable cement should be based on its intended use because not all products polymerize adequately in every clinical situation. Although no cement met the stated criteria for an "all-purpose" cement, those tested did produce a range of product-specific results.

AB - Statement of problem. Little is known about the ability of dual-polymerizable resin cements to polymerize when they are used in various clinical scenarios. Purpose. This study was conducted to determine whether any of 6 commercially available dual-polymerizable resin cements should be classified as an "all-purpose" resin cement. Material and methods. Chemical conversion values (C=C converted to C-C, or the extent of the curing reaction) of 6 commercially available dual-polymerizable resin cements were determined with infrared spectroscopy in 5 clinically relevant scenarios. Scenarios included: using each cement in a dual-polymerizable mode (mixing of 2 pastes); light polymerizing curing through Mylar sheets (dual-Mylar), which served as the control; light polymerizing through 3-mm porcelain (dual-3 mm); and no exposure to light (dual-no light). The single-component light-polymerizable product was also tested as follows: exposed directly through Mylar (light-Mylar) or exposed through 3 mm of porcelain (light-3 mm). Results. For each product, dual-Mylar treatment yielded the highest conversion value of all treatments (control for each product). For all products, dual-3 mm conversion was at least 97% of control and equivalent to control, with the exception of Lute-It!. Dual-no light conversion was less than control treatment but at least 86% of control for all products except for Variolink II (62% of control). For all products in dual-no light mode, except Choice and Variolink II, conversion was at least equal to the light-Mylar values. Only 1 product (Variolink II) did not demonstrate increased conversion values for dual-Mylar compared with light-Mylar treatments. For most other products (Calibra, Insure, and Lute-It!), conversion values for light-3 mm were significantly less than for light-Mylar. Conversion values for Nexus, Choice, and Variolink II were equivalent between light-Mylar and light-3 mm treatments. Conclusion. The choice of a dual-polymerizable cement should be based on its intended use because not all products polymerize adequately in every clinical situation. Although no cement met the stated criteria for an "all-purpose" cement, those tested did produce a range of product-specific results.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0035348840&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0035348840&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1067/mpr.2001.114842

DO - 10.1067/mpr.2001.114842

M3 - Article

C2 - 11357075

AN - SCOPUS:0035348840

VL - 85

SP - 479

EP - 484

JO - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

JF - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

SN - 0022-3913

IS - 5

ER -