Miyuki Oshika, Yukari Odagiri, Kami Yoneyama, Mark A Latta, Wayne W Barkmeier, Akimasa Tsujimoto
{"title":"Wear resistance of self-adhesive and universal resin luting cements.","authors":"Miyuki Oshika, Yukari Odagiri, Kami Yoneyama, Mark A Latta, Wayne W Barkmeier, Akimasa Tsujimoto","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the wear resistance of conventional self-adhesive resin luting cements with that of recently developed universal resin luting cements under both dual-cure and chemical-cure conditions, and to evaluate the influence of mixing method (hand-mix or auto-mix).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Five resin luting cements were evaluated: three universal cements [G-Cem One EM (GUA) and RelyX Universal (RUA) auto-mix types, and G-Cem One neo (GUH) hand-mix type) and two conventional self-adhesive cements (Clearfil SA Luting Multi in hand-mix (SH) and auto-mix (SA) forms, and RelyX Unicem 2 (RA) auto-mix type]. Wear resistance was assessed using an Alabama wear-testing machine. Volume loss (mm³) and maximum facet depth (µm) were measured after wear testing. Statistical analyses were performed to compare differences among materials, curing modes, and mixing methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The volume loss ranged from 0.054-0.167 mm³ and the maximum facet depth ranged from 99.6 to 222.7 µm. Significant differences were observed among the resin luting cements and between dual-cure and chemical-cure conditions. However, no significant differences were found between curing conditions within the universal resin luting cements. Additionally, no significant differences were identified between the hand-mixed and auto-mixed versions of the same or similar materials.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Wear resistance was strongly material dependent, but universal resin luting cements showed no influence of curing mode. A universal resin luting cement with good wear resistance may be a good option when restorative margins are difficult to illuminate.</p>","PeriodicalId":7538,"journal":{"name":"American journal of dentistry","volume":"39 5","pages":"241-246"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the wear resistance of conventional self-adhesive resin luting cements with that of recently developed universal resin luting cements under both dual-cure and chemical-cure conditions, and to evaluate the influence of mixing method (hand-mix or auto-mix).
Methods: Five resin luting cements were evaluated: three universal cements [G-Cem One EM (GUA) and RelyX Universal (RUA) auto-mix types, and G-Cem One neo (GUH) hand-mix type) and two conventional self-adhesive cements (Clearfil SA Luting Multi in hand-mix (SH) and auto-mix (SA) forms, and RelyX Unicem 2 (RA) auto-mix type]. Wear resistance was assessed using an Alabama wear-testing machine. Volume loss (mm³) and maximum facet depth (µm) were measured after wear testing. Statistical analyses were performed to compare differences among materials, curing modes, and mixing methods.
Results: The volume loss ranged from 0.054-0.167 mm³ and the maximum facet depth ranged from 99.6 to 222.7 µm. Significant differences were observed among the resin luting cements and between dual-cure and chemical-cure conditions. However, no significant differences were found between curing conditions within the universal resin luting cements. Additionally, no significant differences were identified between the hand-mixed and auto-mixed versions of the same or similar materials.
Clinical significance: Wear resistance was strongly material dependent, but universal resin luting cements showed no influence of curing mode. A universal resin luting cement with good wear resistance may be a good option when restorative margins are difficult to illuminate.
目的:比较双固化和化学固化条件下常规自粘树脂粘结剂与新开发的通用树脂粘结剂的耐磨性,并评价混合方法(手动混合或自动混合)对其耐磨性的影响。方法:对5种树脂黏合剂进行评价:3种通用型黏合剂[G-Cem One EM (GUA)和RelyX universal (RUA)自动混合型,G-Cem One neo (GUH)手动混合型]和2种常规型黏合剂(Clearfil SA luting Multi,手动混合(SH)和自动混合(SA)形式,以及RelyX Unicem 2 (RA)自动混合型]。使用阿拉巴马磨损试验机评估耐磨性。在磨损测试后测量体积损失(mm³)和最大facet深度(µm)。统计分析比较了材料、固化方式和混合方法之间的差异。结果:体积损失范围为0.054 ~ 0.167 mm³,最大关节突深度范围为99.6 ~ 222.7µm。树脂粘结剂之间、双固化与化学固化之间存在显著差异。然而,在通用树脂粘结剂的固化条件之间没有发现显着差异。此外,在相同或类似材料的手工混合和自动混合版本之间没有发现显着差异。临床意义:耐磨性与材料密切相关,而通用树脂粘结剂不受固化方式的影响。当修复边缘难以照射时,具有良好耐磨性的通用树脂粘结剂可能是一个很好的选择。
期刊介绍:
The American Journal of Dentistry, published by Mosher & Linder, Inc., provides peer-reviewed scientific articles with clinical significance for the general dental practitioner.