Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Luting cements: a review and comparison.

G Oilo1

  • 1NIOM, Scandinavian Institute of Dental Materials, Haslum, Norway.

International Dental Journal
|April 1, 1991
PubMed
Summary

This study compares zinc phosphate, polycarboxylate, and glass ionomer cements, evaluating their properties for dental applications. Glass ionomer cements offer superior strength and retention, making them ideal for challenging restorations.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

In vitro shear bond strength of two resin composites to dentin with five different dentin adhesives.

Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985)·1999
Same author

In vivo wear ranking of some restorative materials.

Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985)·1994
Same author

Bond strength testing--what does it mean?

International dental journal·1993
Same author

In vitro quality testing of dentin adhesives.

Acta odontologica Scandinavica·1993
Same author

The structure of dentin surfaces exposed for bond strength measurements.

Scandinavian journal of dental research·1993
Same author

Tensile bond strength of maxillofacial adhesives.

The Journal of prosthetic dentistry·1993

Area of Science:

  • Dental Materials Science
  • Biocompatibility Studies

Background:

  • Dental cements are crucial for restoration retention and pulp protection.
  • Understanding material properties guides clinical selection.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the physical, mechanical, and biological properties of zinc phosphate, polycarboxylate, and glass ionomer cements.
  • To evaluate their suitability for various clinical scenarios.

Main Methods:

  • Comparative analysis of cement properties including strength, retention, film thickness, working time, solubility, water sensitivity, biocompatibility, and handling.
  • Evaluation based on established dental material testing parameters.

Main Results:

  • Zinc phosphate cement exhibits acceptable strength, working time, and handling, with good biocompatibility.
  • Polycarboxylate cement offers excellent biocompatibility but has lower strength and shorter working time.
  • Glass ionomer cement demonstrates the highest strength and retention, with low solubility, but requires careful handling and water management during setting.

Conclusions:

  • Each cement type presents unique advantages and disadvantages for specific clinical needs.
  • Glass ionomer cement is recommended for situations requiring high retention where zinc phosphate cement may fail.
  • Polycarboxylate cement is a viable option for restorations with limited masticatory load and anticipated pulp irritation.

Related Experiment Videos