Effect of dentin desensitizers and cementing agents on retention of full crowns using standardized crown preparations

Nantiya H. Yim, Frederick A. Rueggeberg, W. Frank Caughman, F. Michael Gardner, David H. Pashley

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

60 Scopus citations


Statement of problem. Past research has not controlled preparation surface area when examining the influence of dentin desensitizers on the retentive strength of cemented cast crowns, leading to inconsistent results. Purpose. This research controlled crown preparation surface area and evaluated the effect of various dentin desensitizers and conventional cementing agents on the in vitro retentive strength of cast crowns. Methods and material. Freshly extracted human molars were prepared for a standardized crown preparation (26 degrees total convergence, 4 mm axial height) with a custom-made pantograph. Dentin desensitizers included none (control), a polymerizable material (All-Bond 2), and a nonpolymerizable desensitizer (Gluma Desensitizer). Cementing agents included zinc phosphate (Fleck's), glass ionomer (Ketac-Cem), resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji II), and resin cement (Panavia 21). Twelve teeth were prepared for each test condition (144 teeth total). Individual castings were made from a base metal alloy (Rexillium III). Crowns were removed after storage at 26°C for 48 hours at 100% relative humidity using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1.27 mm/min. The proportion of cement retained on the tooth and casting after debonding was quantified according to treatment. Statistical treatment included 1- and 2-way ANOVAs, followed by the Tukey-Kramer post hoc test at a preset alpha of 0.05. Results. Resin cement exhibited the highest retentive strength and all dentin treatments resulted in significantly different retentive values (All-Bond 2 (5.68 ± 0.70 MPa) > control (4.67 ± 0.48 MPa) > Gluma (4.12 ± 0.37 MPa)). Retention of resin-modified glass ionomer was between the resin cement and glass ionomer groups: All-Bond 2 (3.46 ± 0.26 MPa) > Gluma (2.81 ± 0.15 MPa) = control (2.96 ± 0.18 MPa). Conventional glass ionomer values were between those of Fuji Plus and zinc phosphate groups: All Bond 2 (2.23 ± 0.20 MPa) = control (2.36 ± 0.20 MPa) > Gluma (1.98 ± 0.23 MPa). Zinc phosphate had the lowest retention values: control (1.68 ± 0.08 MPa) > Gluma (0.81 ± 0.11 MPa) > All-Bond 2 (0.67 ± 0.14 MPa). The majority of cement was retained on the debonded tooth surface versus the casting, with the exception of zinc phosphate when used with dentin pretreatments. Conclusion. Controlled crown surface areas reduced the variation in strength values permitting high discrimination among retention values of desensitizer/cement combinations. In all but 1 combination, Gluma desensitizer significantly decreased crown retention. With resin cement and resin-modified glass ionomer, use of All-Bond 2 desensitizer significantly increased crown retention values. (J Prosthet Dent 2000;83: 459-65.).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)459-465
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Issue number4
StatePublished - Apr 2000

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery


Dive into the research topics of 'Effect of dentin desensitizers and cementing agents on retention of full crowns using standardized crown preparations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this