Comparison of Luting Cement Solubility: A Narrative Review
<b>Background:</b> Dental restoration success relies on the physical properties of luting cements. Luting cements fill the space between teeth and the restoration, provide retention and protection from occlusal forces, and act as a barrier to microleakages in the oral environment. <b&...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2024-11-01
|
| Series: | Dentistry Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6767/12/11/365 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850217099791695872 |
|---|---|
| author | Deok Yong Kim Nona Aryan Nathaniel C. Lawson Kyounga Cheon |
| author_facet | Deok Yong Kim Nona Aryan Nathaniel C. Lawson Kyounga Cheon |
| author_sort | Deok Yong Kim |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <b>Background:</b> Dental restoration success relies on the physical properties of luting cements. Luting cements fill the space between teeth and the restoration, provide retention and protection from occlusal forces, and act as a barrier to microleakages in the oral environment. <b>Objective:</b> This review aims to evaluate and compare the solubility of the three most used dental luting cements: glass ionomer (GI), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and resin cement (RC). <b>Methods:</b> The studies selected for review compared the solubilities of combinations of GI, RMGI, and RC in solutions with different pH levels to replicate acidic oral pH. <b>Results:</b> A review of the studies concluded that resin cement had the overall lowest degree of solubility at all pH values and all storage periods, followed by RMGI and GI cement. <b>Conclusions:</b> The success of the restoration is dependent upon the choice of luting cement. The results of the studies reviewed show that all dental luting cements showed some degree of dissolution. Resin cement overall demonstrated the least amount of solubility, followed by RMGI and GI cement. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-fb8909815a544ca9a700ca98893bda4d |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2304-6767 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-11-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Dentistry Journal |
| spelling | doaj-art-fb8909815a544ca9a700ca98893bda4d2025-08-20T02:08:09ZengMDPI AGDentistry Journal2304-67672024-11-01121136510.3390/dj12110365Comparison of Luting Cement Solubility: A Narrative ReviewDeok Yong Kim0Nona Aryan1Nathaniel C. Lawson2Kyounga Cheon3Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL 35294, USADepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL 35294, USADivision of Biomaterials, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL 35294, USADepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL 35294, USA<b>Background:</b> Dental restoration success relies on the physical properties of luting cements. Luting cements fill the space between teeth and the restoration, provide retention and protection from occlusal forces, and act as a barrier to microleakages in the oral environment. <b>Objective:</b> This review aims to evaluate and compare the solubility of the three most used dental luting cements: glass ionomer (GI), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and resin cement (RC). <b>Methods:</b> The studies selected for review compared the solubilities of combinations of GI, RMGI, and RC in solutions with different pH levels to replicate acidic oral pH. <b>Results:</b> A review of the studies concluded that resin cement had the overall lowest degree of solubility at all pH values and all storage periods, followed by RMGI and GI cement. <b>Conclusions:</b> The success of the restoration is dependent upon the choice of luting cement. The results of the studies reviewed show that all dental luting cements showed some degree of dissolution. Resin cement overall demonstrated the least amount of solubility, followed by RMGI and GI cement.https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6767/12/11/365dental luting cementsglass-ionomer cementresin-modified glass ionomer cementresin cement |
| spellingShingle | Deok Yong Kim Nona Aryan Nathaniel C. Lawson Kyounga Cheon Comparison of Luting Cement Solubility: A Narrative Review Dentistry Journal dental luting cements glass-ionomer cement resin-modified glass ionomer cement resin cement |
| title | Comparison of Luting Cement Solubility: A Narrative Review |
| title_full | Comparison of Luting Cement Solubility: A Narrative Review |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Luting Cement Solubility: A Narrative Review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Luting Cement Solubility: A Narrative Review |
| title_short | Comparison of Luting Cement Solubility: A Narrative Review |
| title_sort | comparison of luting cement solubility a narrative review |
| topic | dental luting cements glass-ionomer cement resin-modified glass ionomer cement resin cement |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6767/12/11/365 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT deokyongkim comparisonoflutingcementsolubilityanarrativereview AT nonaaryan comparisonoflutingcementsolubilityanarrativereview AT nathanielclawson comparisonoflutingcementsolubilityanarrativereview AT kyoungacheon comparisonoflutingcementsolubilityanarrativereview |