CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Dental Journal of Advance Studies 2020; 8(03): 092-101
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1714321
Original Article

To Evaluate the Solubility of Different Permanent and Temporary Dental Luting Cements in Artificial Saliva of Different pH Values at Different Time Intervals—An In Vitro Study

Shak Mehta
1  Department of Prosthodontics, Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Baddi, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India
,
Tarun Kalra
1  Department of Prosthodontics, Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Baddi, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India
,
Manjit Kumar
1  Department of Prosthodontics, Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Baddi, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India
,
Ajay Bansal
1  Department of Prosthodontics, Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Baddi, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India
,
Abhiskek Avasthi
1  Department of Prosthodontics, Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Baddi, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India
,
Shefali Singh Malik
1  Department of Prosthodontics, Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Baddi, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India
› Author Affiliations
 

Abstract

Introduction Luting cements are susceptible to attack by moisture during the initial setting period that can result in an increased solubility. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the solubility of different permanent and temporary dental luting cements in artificial saliva of different pH values at different time intervals.

Materials and Methods Eight commercial luting cements were used. Out of which five were permanent cements (Rely X lute2, zinc phosphate cement, zinc polycarboxylate cement, Rely X U-200, GC GIC) and three temporary cements (ZOE, Oratemp NE, Temposil). A total of 200 samples were made into 25 specimens of each cement (five samples for each study solution group). The samples were made of dimension 20 mm × 1.5 mm in the metal mold. Once the cements were set, they were removed and after 3 minutes of removal they were placed in the incubator at 37°C ± 1 for 1 hour. Specimens of each cement type were separated into five groups for evaluation and comparison in distilled water and artificial saliva with four different pH values (pH 3, pH 5, pH 7, and pH 9). Percentage of solubility was calculated as 100% times weight loss divided by initial weight of the specimen.

Results When all permanent cements were tested the result showed that Rely X U-200 showed least dissolution even after 28 days, followed by Rely X lute-2, then Glass ionomer cement then zinc polycarboxylate cement and then zinc phosphate cement which gave maximum dissolution.

Conclusion When all temporary cements were tested the result showed that Temposil showed least dissolution even after 28 days, followed by OraTemp NE, compared with zinc oxide eugenol which gave maximum dissolution.


#

Introduction

To achieve the longevity, good functional and aesthetic acceptance of all the fixed prostheses luting cements plays a major role. The physical, mechanical, and biological properties of all the luting cements depend on the powder-liquid or paste form.

Luting cements help to lute indirect restoration prepared in the laboratory. Cements may be permanent or temporary planned for the restoration.[1] Success of luting cements depends on physical, mechanical, and biological properties like effect on dental pulp, bonding to tooth structure, and solubility in the oral environment.[2]

The success of fixed prosthesis is very much dependent on the physical properties of the luting cements like thin film thickness, high compressive, tensile and shear strength, and greater fracture toughness. Isolation of the cement is also necessary to prevent dimensional changes occurring in the cement. Causes are gain or loss of water, and the coefficient of thermal expansion is different for the tooth, prosthesis, and the cement. So, isolation of the tooth after luting and excess removal are of utmost importance to allow continuous setting of the cement.[3]

Luting cements bond to tooth surface (abutment) by means of mechanical bonding or chemical bonding. Cements like zinc phosphate bond mechanically whereas cements like resin cements and resin-modified GIC bond chemically to tooth structure. Since the properties of various cements differ from each other the choice of cement depends on a larger degree to the functional and biological demands of the particular clinical situation. Solubility is one of the most essential factors in assessing the quality of luting agents in restorative dentistry. Luting cements can be classified under various categories depending on their chemical formulation such as zinc phosphate, glass ionomer cement, polycarboxylate cement, zinc oxide eugenol, and resin cement.

Film thickness, bond strength, dimensional stability, solubility, etc. are among the few factors which can influence the retention of fixed prosthesis. Thin film thickness of cement is required under the prosthesis as there will be less internal flaws compared with thick film and more close adaptation of prosthesis to the tooth surface when compared with a thicker one. The cement should have high strength values. Greater forces are required to dislodge restoration so that cements should have high tensile strength. The dimensional changes do occur in the cement during setting and dissolution after post-cementation.[3]

Due to the bacterial break down of carbohydrates, there is release of lactic acid, butyric acid, and aspartic acid which bring normal pH of saliva to more acidic level. When the pH level in mouth goes below 5.5 (i.e., the critical pH value), the acids start breaking down the enamel on tooth.[4] Different food habits can alter the pH of saliva which can affect the solubility of luting cements. Longer the period teeth are exposed to a low salivary pH, greater the chances to develop dental caries. Lot of studies have been conducted by researchers on solubility of conventional luting agents. However, information is less in terms of solubility of temporary and permanent cements in artificial saliva with different pH values.[5]

The present in vitro study was performed to evaluate the solubility of various permanent and temporary luting cements in artificial saliva with different pH values over wide time intervals.


#

Materials and Methods

All the samples were divided into two main groups, group A and group B. In group A the permanent cements: zinc phosphate cement (Harvard, Germany), glass ionomer cement G.C.(Fuji, Japan), zinc polycarboxylate cement (Harvard, Germany), resin modified GIC Rely X Lute2(3M, Minnesota, United States), and resin cement U200 ( 3M, Minnesota, United States) were included and in group B temporary cements: Temposil (Coltene Whaledent, Switzerland), ZOE (Dental Products of India, India), and Oratemp (Prevest Denpro, India) were included ([Tables 1] [2] [Figs. 1] [2]).

Table 1

Permanent cements

S. no.

Luting cements

p/w ratio

Mixing time

Working time

Setting time

A-1

Rely X lute2

1:1

30 s

2.5 min

5 min

A-2

Zinc phosphate cement

1.5:1

1.5 min

3 min

5–8 min

A-3

Zinc polycarboxylate cement

2.9:1

1 min

2 min

2.3–6 min

A-4

Rely X U-200

1:1 (base:catalyst)

20 s

2.3 min

6 min

A-5

GC GIC

1.8:1

20 s

2 min

4.3 min

Table 2

Temporary cements

S. no.

Luting cements

p/w ratio

Mixing time

Working time

Setting time

B-1

ZOE

5:1 (weight)

1–11/2 min

2 min

3 min 30 s

B-2

Oratemp NE

1:1 (base:catalyst)

45 s

2–2.3 min

6–10 min

B-3

Temposil

1:1 (base:catalyst)

15 s

0.5 min

2 min

Zoom Image
Fig. 1 Permanent cements. (A) Zinc phosphate cement. (B) GC Fuji glass ionomer cement. (C) Zinc polycarboxylate cement. (D) Rely X Luting 2.
Zoom Image
Fig. 2 Temporary cements. (A) Rely X U200. (B) Temposil 2. (C) ZOE. (D) Oratemp NE.

To conduct the study a standard stainless-steel ring was fabricated with inside diameter of 20 mm and thickness of 1.5 mm to get a uniform size for all samples ([Fig. 3]). A total of 200 samples were made into 25 specimens of each cement (five samples for each study solution group) ([Fig. 4]). Samples of size 20 mm × 1.5 mm were made. For easy removal of samples, a separate medium in the form of petroleum jelly was applied. Cements were mixed according to the manufacturer’s instructions and placed in the mold and pressed between two polythene sheets backed by flat glass slab under hand pressure to remove excess of materials. Once the cements were set they were removed and after 3 minutes of removal they were placed in incubator at 37°C ± 1 for 1 hour. Specimens of each cement type were separated into five groups for evaluation and comparison in distilled water and artificial saliva with four different pH values (pH 3, pH 5, pH 7, and pH 9).

Zoom Image
Fig. 3 Custom-made metal mold.
Zoom Image
Fig. 4 Samples.

Artificial Saliva

The artificial saliva was made in the College Research Laboratory with composition as NaCl 0.400 g, KCI 0.400g; CaC12 2H2O 0.8 g, NaH2PO4 0.78 g, NaS.9H2O 0.005 g, urea 1.0 g and distilled water, 1,000 mL. The pH was then adjusted to 3, 5, 7, or 9 with NaOH or HCI, and the volume was made up to1 L.


#

Experimental Procedure

Dental cement specimens were reweighed and submerged individually in five study group solutions by pouring 50 ± 1 mL of distilled water and preparing artificial saliva with pH values of 3, 5, 7, and 9. The samples were then stored at 37 ± 1°C in incubator. The samples were tested for dissolution by comparing initial weight and final weight at time intervals of 24 hours, 72 hours, 7 days, and 28 days ([Tables 3] [4]). At the end of each time period, specimens were removed from the study sample and with clean absorbent paper excess liquid was soaked, and stored in a desiccators containing thoroughly dried anhydrous calcium chloride and blue silica gel until samples were totally dry. Amount of weight loss was calculated as the difference between the initial weight of the specimen and its final constant weight ([Fig. 5]) after storage in the desiccators. The specimens were then again placed in the desiccators to avoid contamination by air moisture and then stored in an incubator maintained at 37°C ± 1.

Table 3

Solubility of permanent luting cements in artificial saliva at different time intervals and at different pH values

Sample no.

Initial weight (g)

24 h (g)

72 h (g)

7 d (g)

28 d (g)

GIC cement

1.

pH 3

0.92

0.9

0.88

0.88

0.87

2.

pH

1.18

1.15

1.14

1.14

1.13

3.

pH

0.99

0.97

0.96

0.96

0.95

4.

pH

1.09

1.07

1.07

1.06

1.06

5.

pH

1.07

1.04

1.03

1.03

1.02

6.

pH 5

1.08

1.06

1.06

1.06

1.05

7.

pH

1

0.97

0.97

0.96

0.95

8.

pH

1.06

1.04

1.04

1.03

1.03

9.

pH

1.12

1.09

1.09

1.08

1.07

10.

pH

1.08

1.06

1.06

1.05

1.04

11.

pH 7

1.02

1.01

0.99

0.98

0.98

12.

pH

0.95

0.93

0.92

0.92

0.92

13.

pH

1.1

1.09

1.08

1.07

1.07

14.

pH

1.06

1.04

1.04

1.03

1.02

15.

pH

1.02

0.99

0.99

0.98

0.98

16.

pH 9

1.02

1.01

1

0.99

0.98

17.

pH

1.1

1.09

1.09

1.07

1.06

18.

pH

1.07

1.06

1.05

1.04

1.04

19.

pH

1.09

1.08

1.07

1.06

1.05

20.

pH

1.04

1.02

1.02

1.01

1.01

21.

D. water

0.92

0.9

0.89

0.89

0.88

22.

PH

0.99

0.98

0.96

0.95

0.95

23.

PH

1.18

1.16

1.14

1.14

1.14

24.

PH

1.02

0.99

0.99

0.98

0.98

25.

PH

0.95

0.94

0.92

0.91

0.91

Rely X U200

1.

pH 3

0.99

0.98

0.98

0.98

0.98

2.

pH

0.8

0.8

0.79

0.79

0.79

3.

pH

0.79

0.79

0.78

0.78

0.78

4.

pH

0.89

0.89

0.88

0.88

0.88

5.

pH

0.89

0.88

0.87

0.87

0.87

6.

pH 5

0.69

0.68

0.68

0.68

0.68

7.

pH

0.87

0.86

0.86

0.86

0.86

8.

pH

0.98

0.97

0.97

0.97

0.96

9.

pH

0.99

0.98

0.97

0.97

0.97

10.

pH

0.92

0.92

0.91

0.91

0.91

11.

pH 7

0.87

0.87

0.86

0.86

0.86

12.

pH

0.81

0.8

0.8

0.8

0.8

13.

pH

0.84

0.84

0.84

0.84

0.84

14.

pH

0.91

0.9

0.9

0.89

0.89

15.

pH

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.95

0.94

16.

pH 9

0.91

0.91

0.91

0.91

0.9

17.

pH

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.83

18.

pH

1.07

1.06

1.06

1.07

1.06

19.

pH

0.86

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.85

20.

pH

1.03

1.02

1.02

1.03

1.02

21.

D. water

0.82

0.83

0.83

0.82

0.82

22.

pH

0.91

0.9

0.9

0.89

0.89

23.

pH

0.98

0.98

0.98

0.97

0.97

24.

pH

0.9

0.91

0.91

0.9

0.9

25.

pH

0.96

0.95

0.95

0.94

0.94

Zinc phosphate cement

1.

pH 3

1.07

1.04

1.03

1.02

1.01

2.

pH

1.17

1.13

1.13

1.12

1.12

3.

pH

1.12

1.08

1.07

1.06

1.05

4.

pH

1.26

1.22

1.21

1.21

1.2

5.

pH

1.02

0.98

0.97

0.97

0.95

6.

pH 5

1.05

1.03

1.01

1.01

1

7.

pH

1.11

1.07

1.06

1.06

1.05

8.

pH

1.01

0.98

0.98

0.96

0.95

9.

pH

1.16

1.12

1.12

1.11

1.11

10.

pH

1.04

1.01

1.01

0.99

0.98

11.

pH 7

1.15

1.12

1.11

1.11

1.11

12.

pH

1.21

1.18

1.17

1.17

1.16

13.

pH

1.19

1.17

1.16

1.15

1.14

14.

pH

1.24

1.21

1.2

1.2

1.19

15.

pH

1.15

1.13

1.12

1.11

1.1

16.

pH 9

1.05

1.03

1.03

1.02

1.01

17.

pH

1.17

1.15

1.14

1.13

1.12

18.

pH

1.21

1.2

1.2

1.17

1.16

19.

pH

1.2

1.18

1.17

1.16

1.15

20.

pH

1.17

0.8

0.8

1.13

1.12

21.

D. water

1.08

1.06

1.04

1.04

1.03

22.

pH

1.13

1.11

1.09

1.09

1.08

23.

pH

1.07

1.06

1.04

1.04

1.03

24.

pH

1.18

1.16

1.16

1.15

1.13

25.

pH

1.04

1.02

0.99

0.99

0.99

Rely X LUTE-2

1.

pH 3

1.18

1.17

1.17

1.17

1.16

2.

pH

0.98

0.97

0.97

0.97

0.96

3.

pH

1.23

1.22

1.22

1.21

1.21

4.

pH

1.03

1.01

1.02

1.01

1.01

5.

pH

1.19

1.18

1.18

1.17

1.17

6.

pH 5

1.09

1.08

1.08

1.07

1.07

7.

pH

1.16

1.15

1.14

1.14

1.13

8.

pH

1.17

1.13

1.15

1.15

1.15

9.

pH

1.1

1.09

1.09

1.08

1.08

10.

pH

1.21

1.2

1.2

1.19

1.2

11.

pH 7

1.27

1.26

1.25

1.25

1.25

12.

pH

1.03

1.02

1.01

1.01

1.01

13.

pH

0.99

0.98

0.98

0.97

0.97

14.

pH

0.98

0.97

0.96

0.96

0.96

15.

pH

1.09

1.08

1.06

1.06

1.06

16.

pH 9

0.94

0.93

0.93

0.92

0.92

17.

pH

1.18

1.18

1.16

1.17

1.17

18.

pH

1.03

1.02

1.01

1

1

19.

pH

1.11

1.11

1.1

1.1

1.09

20.

pH

1.06

1.05

1.04

1.04

1.04

21.

D. water

1.06

1.05

1.04

1.04

1.04

22.

pH

1.03

1.02

1.03

1.02

1.01

23.

pH

1.03

1.02

1.02

1.02

1.01

24.

pH

1.01

1

1.01

0.99

0.99

25.

pH

1.07

1.06

1.06

1.05

1.05

Polycarboxylate cement

1.

pH 3

1.44

1.43

1.42

1.41

1.4

2.

pH

1.22

1.2

1.19

1.19

1.17

3.

pH

1.18

1.15

1.14

1.14

1.13

4.

pH

1.12

1.1

1.09

1.09

1.07

5.

pH

1.09

1.07

1.06

1.05

1.04

6.

pH 5

1.51

1.49

1.49

1.48

1.46

7.

pH

1.44

1.42

1.41

1.41

1.39

8.

pH

1.59

1.57

1.56

1.56

1.55

9.

pH

1.41

1.39

1.38

1.38

1.36

10.

pH

1.49

1.46

1.46

1.45

1.44

11.

pH 7

1.54

1.52

1.51

1.51

1.5

12.

pH

1.47

1.45

1.45

1.44

1.43

13.

pH

1.59

1.57

1.56

1.56

1.56

14.

pH

1.39

1.37

1.37

1.36

1.35

15.

pH

1.44

1.42

1.42

1.41

1.4

16.

pH 9

1.4

1.4

1.36

1.36

1.36

17.

pH

1.48

1.47

1.44

1.44

1.44

18.

pH

1.36

1.35

1.33

1.32

1.32

19.

pH

1.41

1.41

1.38

1.38

1.37

20.

pH

1.46

1.45

1.42

1.42

1.42

21.

D. water

1.09

1.07

1.07

1.06

1.05

22.

pH

1.27

1.26

1.26

1.24

1.23

23.

pH

1.35

1.35

1.34

1.33

1.32

24.

pH

1.15

1.13

1.13

1.12

1.11

25.

pH

1.21

1.2

1.2

1.19

1.19

Table 4

Solubility of temporary luting cements in artificial saliva at different time intervals and at different pH values

ORATEMP-NE

1.

pH 3

1.96

1.94

1.94

1.93

1.93

2.

pH

1.9

1.87

1.87

1.86

1.85

3.

pH

1.76

1.73

1.73

1.72

1.72

4.

pH

1.81

1.79

1.79

1.78

1.77

5.

pH

1.81

1.77

1.77

1.77

1.76

6.

pH 5

1.79

1.77

1.77

1.76

1.76

7.

pH

1.99

1.98

1.97

1.97

1.96

8.

pH

1.57

1.55

1.55

1.54

1.54

9.

pH

1.94

1.93

1.93

1.92

1.91

10.

pH

1.68

1.67

1.66

1.66

1.65

11.

pH 7

1.59

1.57

1.56

1.56

1.56

12.

pH

1.91

1.9

1.89

1.89

1.89

13.

pH

1.89

1.88

1.88

1.87

1.87

14.

pH

1.8

1.79

1.79

1.78

1.78

15.

pH

1.8

1.78

1.78

1.77

1.77

16.

pH 9

1.56

1.56

1.56

1.56

1.56

17.

pH

1.78

1.78

1.77

1.77

1.77

18.

pH

1.96

1.96

1.95

1.95

1.94

19.

pH

1.71

1.71

1.7

1.7

1.69

20.

pH

1.89

1.88

1.87

1.87

1.87

21.

D. water

1.8

1.8

1.79

1.78

1.78

22.

pH

1.98

1.97

1.97

1.97

1.97

23.

pH

1.85

1.83

1.84

1.83

1.82

24.

pH

1.69

1.69

1.68

1.67

1.67

25.

pH

1.79

1.77

1.77

1.77

1.77

TEMPOSIL 2

1.

pH 3

1.64

1.63

1.62

1.62

1.62

2.

pH

1.57

1.56

1.56

1.56

1.56

3.

pH

1.78

1.77

1.76

1.76

1.76

4.

pH

1.54

1.53

1.53

1.52

1.52

5.

pH

1.68

1.66

1.66

1.66

1.66

6.

pH 5

1.39

1.37

1.36

1.36

1.36

7.

pH

1.58

1.58

1.58

1.57

1.56

8.

pH

1.68

1.67

1.67

1.66

1.65

9.

pH

1.43

1.41

1.4

1.4

1.4

10.

pH

1.56

1.55

1.55

1.55

1.54

11.

pH 7

1.66

1.66

1.65

1.64

1.64

12.

pH

1.42

1.41

1.41

1.41

1.4

13.

pH

1.32

1.29

1.29

1.29

1.29

14.

pH

1.37

1.36

1.35

1.35

1.35

15.

pH

1.28

1.27

1.26

1.26

1.25

16.

pH 9

1.36

1.36

1.35

1.35

1.34

17.

pH

1.64

1.63

1.62

1.62

1.62

18.

pH

1.49

1.48

1.48

1.47

1.46

19.

pH

1.54

1.52

1.52

1.52

1.52

20.

pH

1.37

1.36

1.36

1.34

1.34

21.

D. water

1.44

1.43

1.41

1.41

1.41

22.

pH

1.77

1.77

1.77

1.77

1.76

23.

pH

1.65

1.64

1.64

1.64

1.64

24.

pH

1.56

1.55

1.55

1.55

1.54

25.

pH

1.66

1.65

1.64

1.64

1.63

Zinc oxide eugenol

1.

pH 3

1.77

1.72

1.71

1.71

1.7

2.

pH

1.95

1.91

1.9

1.9

1.89

3.

pH

1.5

1.45

1.44

1.43

1.43

4.

pH

1.81

1.78

1.77

1.77

1.75

5.

pH

1.59

1.55

1.54

1.53

1.53

6.

pH 5

1.32

1.27

1.26

1.26

1.25

7.

pH

1.08

1.05

1.05

1.04

1.04

8.

pH

0.97

0.94

0.93

0.93

0.92

9.

pH

1.16

1.11

1.1

1.11

1.1

10.

pH

1.07

1.04

1.04

1.03

1.02

11.

pH 7

1.33

1.31

1.29

1.28

1.28

12.

pH

1.43

1.42

1.41

1.4

1.39

13.

pH

1

0.98

0.97

0.97

0.96

14.

pH

1.4

1.37

1.37

1.36

1.36

15.

pH

1.16

1.14

1.13

1.13

1.12

16.

pH 9

1.69

1.68

1.68

1.67

1.65

17.

pH

1.36

1.35

1.33

1.33

1.32

18.

pH

1.18

1.15

1.13

1.14

1.13

19.

pH

1.6

1.59

1.59

1.57

1.57

20.

pH

1.26

1.24

1.23

1.23

1.22

21.

D. water

1.12

1.1

1.09

1.09

1.08

22.

pH

1.36

1.34

1.33

1.33

1.31

23.

pH

1.02

1

0.99

0.98

0.96

24.

pH

1.26

1.24

1.22

1.22

1.21

25.

pH

1.12

1.1

1.09

1.08

1.08

Zoom Image
Fig. 5 Testing of samples.

Percentage of solubility was calculated as 100% times weight loss divided by initial weight of the specimen.


#

Statistical Analysis

For each type of cement five specimens of each medium were analyzed and their average values were taken. Statistical analysis for cement solubility values was calculated by one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) and post hoc test.


#
#

Results

Comparison between Temporary Cements Showed Following Results

When all temporary cements were tested the result showed that Temposil showed least dissolution even after 28 days, followed by Oratemp NE, compared with zinc oxide eugenol which gave maximum dissolution. For Temposil at different pH values it was found that solubility after 28 days was maximum in case of pH 3 and minimum for distilled water. For Oratemp NE at different pH values it was found that solubility after 28 days was maximum in case of pH 3 and minimum for pH 9. For zinc oxide eugenol at different pH values it was found that solubility after 28 days was maximum in case of pH 3 and minimum for pH 9 ([Fig. 6]).

Zoom Image
Fig. 6 Shows the comparison for solubility of various permanent luting cement in different pH values and at different time intervals.

#

Comparison between Permanent Cements Showed Following Results

When all permanent cements were tested the result showed that Rely X U-200 showed least dissolution even after 28 days, followed by Rely X lute-2, then glass ionomer cement then zinc polycarboxylate cement, and then zinc phosphate cement which gave maximum dissolution. For glass ionomer cement at different pH values it was found that solubility after 28 days was maximum in case of pH 3 and minimum for pH 9. For Rely-X U-200 at different pH values it was found that solubility after 28 days was maximum in case of pH 5 and minimum for pH 9. For zinc phosphate cement at different pH values it was found that solubility after 28 days was maximum in case of pH 3 and minimum for distilled water. For polycarboxylate cement at different pH values it was found that solubility after 28 days was maximum in case of pH 3 and minimum for distilled water. For Lute-2 at different pH values it was found that solubility after 28 days was maximum in case of pH 7 and minimum for pH 9 ([Fig. 7]).

Zoom Image
Fig. 7 Shows the comparison for solubility of various temporary luting cement in different pH values and at different time intervals.

#
#

Discussion

In the present study, results showed that there were significant differences in the water sorption and solubility values among the tested materials. The observed difference might be due to the differences in resin cement composition and different pH levels. In accordance with the previous study by Saleem,[6] there is high sorption rate of zinc phosphate cement in both water and acidic pH in comparison with other cements. Therefore it is necessary that adequate protection is given against water after cementation. The reason for the dissolution of glass ionomer cement in water has been attributed to two factors: first, they contain sodium that forms water soluble salts with the matrix forming anions. Second, the chemical reactions of the setting of cement remove the free calcium and aluminum ions. In addition, aluminum ions react rather slowly with the matrix forming anions and before they are bound, are vulnerable to early water leaching.

Resin-based materials with lower filler content also displayed higher sorption.[7] Furthermore, cements with greater matrix portion are more prone to hydrolysis and subsequent degradation.

With the confirmation of several studies on effect of low pH on solubility and sorption this study also illustrated the significant effect of surrounding media on the cement solubility and sorption with citric acid and ascorbic acid of apple juice. This confirms the findings of several studies on the effect of low pH. According to Marghalani,[8] immersion of resin cements in lactic acid changes the sorption and solubility. There is hydrolysis of the matrix after being exposed to hydrogen ions.[9] The presence of hydrogen ion accelerates the catalysis for the ester groups of dimethacrylate monomers. This leads to the deterioration of the polymer crosslinking and the resin cement becomes soft.[10] Later on, there is more release of monomer and with prolonged acidic exposure, from the cement the external filler particles are released. Though it seems that there is increased solubility of resin cement but according to Yoshida et al[11] and Hamouda resin cements showed less solubility as compare with other acid–base cements.[12] Due to the continuous protective buffering capacity release will not be continuous, so acidic deterioration is yet to be determined.


#

Conclusion

The result for permanent cement showed that Rely X U-200 exhibited least dissolution even after 28 days, followed by Rely X lute-2, then glass ionomer cement followed by zinc polycarboxylate cement, and then zinc phosphate cement which gave maximum dissolution. The dissolution was maximum in pH 3 and least for pH 9.

The result for temporary cement showed that Temposil exhibited least dissolution even after 28 days, followed by Oratemp NE, compared with zinc oxide eugenol which gave maximum dissolution. The dissolution was maximum in pH 3 and least for pH 9.

Within limitation of the study as oral conditions are different since it is a vitro study it is recommended to use Rely X-200 as permanent luting cement and Temposil as temporary luting cement.


#
#

Conflict of Interest

None declared.


Address for correspondence

Manjit Kumar, MDS
Department of Prosthodontics, Bhojia Dental College
Baddi, Solan, Himachal Pradesh 173205
India   

Publication History

Publication Date:
05 August 2020 (online)

© .

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India


Zoom Image
Fig. 1 Permanent cements. (A) Zinc phosphate cement. (B) GC Fuji glass ionomer cement. (C) Zinc polycarboxylate cement. (D) Rely X Luting 2.
Zoom Image
Fig. 2 Temporary cements. (A) Rely X U200. (B) Temposil 2. (C) ZOE. (D) Oratemp NE.
Zoom Image
Fig. 3 Custom-made metal mold.
Zoom Image
Fig. 4 Samples.
Zoom Image
Fig. 5 Testing of samples.
Zoom Image
Fig. 6 Shows the comparison for solubility of various permanent luting cement in different pH values and at different time intervals.
Zoom Image
Fig. 7 Shows the comparison for solubility of various temporary luting cement in different pH values and at different time intervals.