Electrical resistance of dental luting cements investigated by the impedance methodology related to their porosities and solubility
-
1
Chulalongkorn university, Prosthodontics, Thailand
-
2
Chulalongkorn university, Electrical Engineering, Thailand
Introduction: Dentin hypersensitivity from oral galvanism does not happen to everyone but it could occur and be annoying. The dissimilar metals are believed to be reason of this problem. Dental luting cement is used to retain the dental prosthesis and is believed to serve as an insulator for pulpal tissue. Therefore, this study is aimed to investigate the electrical resistance of dental luting cements and the relation among the electrical resistance, their porosities and the solubility of dental luting cements.
Materials and Methods: Five types of commercially available dental luting cements were used in this study including Hybond Zince Phosphate (Shofu, Japan), Fuji II Glass Ionomer (GC, Japan), Rely-X Unicem (3M, USA), Rely-XTM U-100 (3M, USA) and Superbond C&B (Sun Medical,Japan). Ten disk specimens from each dental luting cement type were prepared following manufacturer instructions and kept in the incubation for 2 weeks before testing. The porosities of all specimens were observed by Micro CT Scan before Impedance test. For the investigation of electrical resistance, all specimens were immersed in 0.1 M KCl solution at 37°C and the electrical resistance was then measured by the Impedance Methodology connected to an insulation tester. The solubility of dental luting cement was calculated from weight of specimens before and after Impedance test. All data was statistically analysed with independent t-test and one-way ANOVA at p-value of 0.05.
Results: It was found that after 30 days, the electrical resistance of Hybond Zinc Phosphate cement was higher than Fuji II Glass Ionomer cement, 0.017×106 and 0.003×106 Ω, respectively. While, the electrical resistance of the other three resin dental luting cements including both types of Rely-X and Superbond C&B was still higher than capacity of measurement (over 2000 ×106 Ω). Additionally, the mean porosity of Superbond C&B was the significantly highest whereas there is no significant difference among the other four types of dental luting cements. Moreover, the solubility of three resin dental luting cements could not be detected. Unlike the other three resin cements, Hybond Zinc Phosphate and Fuji II Glass Ionomer cements exhibited some dissolving during testing. However, Hybond Zinc Phosphate and Fuji II Glass Ionomer cements showed no significant difference in term of solubility. This study also found no statistical correlation among the electrical resistance, the porosities and the solubility, regardless of dental luting cement types.
Conclusion: Within the limitation of this study, it can be concluded that electrical resistance of dental luting cement is related to the chemical composition and setting reaction but does not relate to amount of porosity and degree of solubility. Fuji II Glass Ionomer cement showed the lowest mean electrical resistance following by Hybond Zinc Phosphate cement. While all resin dental cements showed very high electrical resistance, regardless of amount of porosities. This could imply that using resin dental luting cement could help to reduce the opportunity of dentin hypersensitivity from oral galvanism when dental prosthesis made from metals are planned.
Oral Biology Research Center, Chulalongkorn university
Keywords:
composite,
electric,
Clinical relevance
Conference:
10th World Biomaterials Congress, Montréal, Canada, 17 May - 22 May, 2016.
Presentation Type:
Poster
Topic:
Composites: polymeric, ceramic and metallic
Citation:
Srimaneepong
V,
Kosaiyakanon
Y and
Sriyudthsak
M
(2016). Electrical resistance of dental luting cements investigated by the impedance methodology related to their porosities and solubility.
Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.
Conference Abstract:
10th World Biomaterials Congress.
doi: 10.3389/conf.FBIOE.2016.01.01617
Copyright:
The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers.
They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters.
The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated.
Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed.
For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions.
Received:
27 Mar 2016;
Published Online:
30 Mar 2016.
*
Correspondence:
Dr. Viritpon Srimaneepong, Chulalongkorn university, Prosthodontics, Bangkok, Thailand, Email1
Dr. Yaninee Kosaiyakanon, Chulalongkorn university, Prosthodontics, Bangkok, Thailand, Email2