Fracture toughness of conventional, resin-modified glass-ionomer and composite luting cements

C. A. Mitchell; W. H. Douglas; Y. S. Cheng

doi:10.1016/S0109-5641(99)90024-6

Fracture toughness of conventional, resin-modified glass-ionomer and composite luting cements

C. A. Mitchell, W. H. Douglas, Y. S. Cheng

Biomaterials

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

57 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objectives: This study was conducted to determine if significant differences existed between the fracture toughness of three types of luting cement, and, if the method of mixing conventional glass-ionomer luting cements, hand-mixed or mechanically mixed, influenced the value obtained. Methods: Three types of luting cement were investigated: conventional glass-ionomer cement (two handmixed and two capsulated cements, KetacCem, Fuji I and KetacCem Maxicap, Fuji Cap I), a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer Luting Cement) and a resin composite cement (Scotchbond Resin Cement). Eleven specimens of each of the six cements were fabricated to determine the plane strain fracture toughness using the chevron notch short rod technique. After seven days the specimens were loaded in a water bath, at a crosshead speed of 4 μm/s and the fracture toughness values calculated. Results: ANOVA indicated significant differences between the cements (p < 0.0001) and each cement was compared with all others using Fishers PSLD test (p < 0.05). The rank order of results from highest fracture toughness value to lowest (mean ± s.d.) was Scotchbond Resin Cement (1.31 ± 0.17), Vitremer Luting Cement (1.08 ± 0.1), Fuji Cap I (0.37 ± 0.04), KetacCem Maxicap (0.37 ± 0.05), Fuji I (0.34 ± 0.04), KetacCem (0.27 ± 0.03). Significance: Of the cements tested, the resin composite cement is most likely to resist clinical failure by cement cohesive failure.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	7-13
Number of pages	7
Journal	Dental Materials
Volume	15
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(99)90024-6
State	Published - Jan 1999

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
We wish to acknowledge the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australian) for the financial support through a Dental Postgraduate Scholarship, and the Australian Research Council for the financial support through a large grant scheme. Discussions with Professors B. Lawn and M. Bush are also acknowledged.

Copyright:
Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

Keywords

Chevron notch short rod technique
Fracture toughness
Glass-ionomer cement

Publisher link

10.1016/S0109-5641(99)90024-6

Find It

Find It at U of M Libraries

Cite this

@article{7130a350efa540faafb73b4311756ad1,

title = "Fracture toughness of conventional, resin-modified glass-ionomer and composite luting cements",

abstract = "Objectives: This study was conducted to determine if significant differences existed between the fracture toughness of three types of luting cement, and, if the method of mixing conventional glass-ionomer luting cements, hand-mixed or mechanically mixed, influenced the value obtained. Methods: Three types of luting cement were investigated: conventional glass-ionomer cement (two handmixed and two capsulated cements, KetacCem, Fuji I and KetacCem Maxicap, Fuji Cap I), a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer Luting Cement) and a resin composite cement (Scotchbond Resin Cement). Eleven specimens of each of the six cements were fabricated to determine the plane strain fracture toughness using the chevron notch short rod technique. After seven days the specimens were loaded in a water bath, at a crosshead speed of 4 μm/s and the fracture toughness values calculated. Results: ANOVA indicated significant differences between the cements (p < 0.0001) and each cement was compared with all others using Fishers PSLD test (p < 0.05). The rank order of results from highest fracture toughness value to lowest (mean ± s.d.) was Scotchbond Resin Cement (1.31 ± 0.17), Vitremer Luting Cement (1.08 ± 0.1), Fuji Cap I (0.37 ± 0.04), KetacCem Maxicap (0.37 ± 0.05), Fuji I (0.34 ± 0.04), KetacCem (0.27 ± 0.03). Significance: Of the cements tested, the resin composite cement is most likely to resist clinical failure by cement cohesive failure.",

keywords = "Chevron notch short rod technique, Fracture toughness, Glass-ionomer cement",

author = "Mitchell, {C. A.} and Douglas, {W. H.} and Cheng, {Y. S.}",

note = "Funding Information: We wish to acknowledge the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australian) for the financial support through a Dental Postgraduate Scholarship, and the Australian Research Council for the financial support through a large grant scheme. Discussions with Professors B. Lawn and M. Bush are also acknowledged. Copyright: Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.",

year = "1999",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1016/S0109-5641(99)90024-6",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "15",

pages = "7--13",

journal = "Dental Materials",

issn = "0109-5641",

publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fracture toughness of conventional, resin-modified glass-ionomer and composite luting cements

AU - Mitchell, C. A.

AU - Douglas, W. H.

AU - Cheng, Y. S.

N1 - Funding Information: We wish to acknowledge the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australian) for the financial support through a Dental Postgraduate Scholarship, and the Australian Research Council for the financial support through a large grant scheme. Discussions with Professors B. Lawn and M. Bush are also acknowledged. Copyright: Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

PY - 1999/1

Y1 - 1999/1

N2 - Objectives: This study was conducted to determine if significant differences existed between the fracture toughness of three types of luting cement, and, if the method of mixing conventional glass-ionomer luting cements, hand-mixed or mechanically mixed, influenced the value obtained. Methods: Three types of luting cement were investigated: conventional glass-ionomer cement (two handmixed and two capsulated cements, KetacCem, Fuji I and KetacCem Maxicap, Fuji Cap I), a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer Luting Cement) and a resin composite cement (Scotchbond Resin Cement). Eleven specimens of each of the six cements were fabricated to determine the plane strain fracture toughness using the chevron notch short rod technique. After seven days the specimens were loaded in a water bath, at a crosshead speed of 4 μm/s and the fracture toughness values calculated. Results: ANOVA indicated significant differences between the cements (p < 0.0001) and each cement was compared with all others using Fishers PSLD test (p < 0.05). The rank order of results from highest fracture toughness value to lowest (mean ± s.d.) was Scotchbond Resin Cement (1.31 ± 0.17), Vitremer Luting Cement (1.08 ± 0.1), Fuji Cap I (0.37 ± 0.04), KetacCem Maxicap (0.37 ± 0.05), Fuji I (0.34 ± 0.04), KetacCem (0.27 ± 0.03). Significance: Of the cements tested, the resin composite cement is most likely to resist clinical failure by cement cohesive failure.

AB - Objectives: This study was conducted to determine if significant differences existed between the fracture toughness of three types of luting cement, and, if the method of mixing conventional glass-ionomer luting cements, hand-mixed or mechanically mixed, influenced the value obtained. Methods: Three types of luting cement were investigated: conventional glass-ionomer cement (two handmixed and two capsulated cements, KetacCem, Fuji I and KetacCem Maxicap, Fuji Cap I), a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer Luting Cement) and a resin composite cement (Scotchbond Resin Cement). Eleven specimens of each of the six cements were fabricated to determine the plane strain fracture toughness using the chevron notch short rod technique. After seven days the specimens were loaded in a water bath, at a crosshead speed of 4 μm/s and the fracture toughness values calculated. Results: ANOVA indicated significant differences between the cements (p < 0.0001) and each cement was compared with all others using Fishers PSLD test (p < 0.05). The rank order of results from highest fracture toughness value to lowest (mean ± s.d.) was Scotchbond Resin Cement (1.31 ± 0.17), Vitremer Luting Cement (1.08 ± 0.1), Fuji Cap I (0.37 ± 0.04), KetacCem Maxicap (0.37 ± 0.05), Fuji I (0.34 ± 0.04), KetacCem (0.27 ± 0.03). Significance: Of the cements tested, the resin composite cement is most likely to resist clinical failure by cement cohesive failure.

KW - Chevron notch short rod technique

KW - Fracture toughness

KW - Glass-ionomer cement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032609137&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032609137&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0109-5641(99)90024-6

DO - 10.1016/S0109-5641(99)90024-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 10483390

AN - SCOPUS:0032609137

SN - 0109-5641

VL - 15

SP - 7

EP - 13

JO - Dental Materials

JF - Dental Materials

IS - 1

ER -

Fracture toughness of conventional, resin-modified glass-ionomer and composite luting cements

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Publisher link

Find It

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this