{"title":"双可聚合树脂水泥在模拟临床情况下的固化潜力。","authors":"W. Caughman, D. Chan, F. Rueggeberg","doi":"10.1067/MPR.2001.114842","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"STATEMENT OF PROBLEM\nLittle is known about the ability of dual-polymerizable resin cements to polymerize when they are used in various clinical scenarios.\n\n\nPURPOSE\nThis study was conducted to determine whether any of 6 commercially available dual-polymerizable resin cements should be classified as an \"all-purpose\" resin cement.\n\n\nMATERIAL AND METHODS\n. Chemical conversion values (C=C converted to C-C, or the extent of the curing reaction) of 6 commercially available dual-polymerizable resin cements were determined with infrared spectroscopy in 5 clinically relevant scenarios. Scenarios included: using each cement in a dual-polymerizable mode (mixing of 2 pastes); light polymerizing curing through Mylar sheets (dual-Mylar), which served as the control; light polymerizing through 3-mm porcelain (dual-3 mm); and no exposure to light (dual-no light). The single-component light-polymerizable product was also tested as follows: exposed directly through Mylar (light-Mylar) or exposed through 3 mm of porcelain (light-3 mm). Results. For each product, dual-Mylar treatment yielded the highest conversion value of all treatments (control for each product). For all products, dual-3 mm conversion was at least 97% of control and equivalent to control, with the exception of Lute-It!. Dual-no light conversion was less than control treatment but at least 86% of control for all products except for Variolink II (62% of control). For all products in dual-no light mode, except Choice and Variolink II, conversion was at least equal to the light-Mylar values. Only 1 product (Variolink II) did not demonstrate increased conversion values for dual-Mylar compared with light-Mylar treatments. For most other products (Calibra, Insure, and Lute-It!), conversion values for light-3 mm were significantly less than for light-Mylar. Conversion values for Nexus, Choice, and Variolink II were equivalent between light-Mylar and light-3 mm treatments.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nThe choice of a dual-polymerizable cement should be based on its intended use because not all products polymerize adequately in every clinical situation. Although no cement met the stated criteria for an \"all-purpose\" cement, those tested did produce a range of product-specific results.","PeriodicalId":185384,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of prosthetic dentistry","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"123","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Curing potential of dual-polymerizable resin cements in simulated clinical situations.\",\"authors\":\"W. Caughman, D. Chan, F. Rueggeberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1067/MPR.2001.114842\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"STATEMENT OF PROBLEM\\nLittle is known about the ability of dual-polymerizable resin cements to polymerize when they are used in various clinical scenarios.\\n\\n\\nPURPOSE\\nThis study was conducted to determine whether any of 6 commercially available dual-polymerizable resin cements should be classified as an \\\"all-purpose\\\" resin cement.\\n\\n\\nMATERIAL AND METHODS\\n. Chemical conversion values (C=C converted to C-C, or the extent of the curing reaction) of 6 commercially available dual-polymerizable resin cements were determined with infrared spectroscopy in 5 clinically relevant scenarios. Scenarios included: using each cement in a dual-polymerizable mode (mixing of 2 pastes); light polymerizing curing through Mylar sheets (dual-Mylar), which served as the control; light polymerizing through 3-mm porcelain (dual-3 mm); and no exposure to light (dual-no light). The single-component light-polymerizable product was also tested as follows: exposed directly through Mylar (light-Mylar) or exposed through 3 mm of porcelain (light-3 mm). Results. For each product, dual-Mylar treatment yielded the highest conversion value of all treatments (control for each product). For all products, dual-3 mm conversion was at least 97% of control and equivalent to control, with the exception of Lute-It!. Dual-no light conversion was less than control treatment but at least 86% of control for all products except for Variolink II (62% of control). For all products in dual-no light mode, except Choice and Variolink II, conversion was at least equal to the light-Mylar values. Only 1 product (Variolink II) did not demonstrate increased conversion values for dual-Mylar compared with light-Mylar treatments. For most other products (Calibra, Insure, and Lute-It!), conversion values for light-3 mm were significantly less than for light-Mylar. Conversion values for Nexus, Choice, and Variolink II were equivalent between light-Mylar and light-3 mm treatments.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nThe choice of a dual-polymerizable cement should be based on its intended use because not all products polymerize adequately in every clinical situation. Although no cement met the stated criteria for an \\\"all-purpose\\\" cement, those tested did produce a range of product-specific results.\",\"PeriodicalId\":185384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of prosthetic dentistry\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"123\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of prosthetic dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1067/MPR.2001.114842\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of prosthetic dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1067/MPR.2001.114842","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Curing potential of dual-polymerizable resin cements in simulated clinical situations.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Little is known about the ability of dual-polymerizable resin cements to polymerize when they are used in various clinical scenarios.
PURPOSE
This study was conducted to determine whether any of 6 commercially available dual-polymerizable resin cements should be classified as an "all-purpose" resin cement.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
. Chemical conversion values (C=C converted to C-C, or the extent of the curing reaction) of 6 commercially available dual-polymerizable resin cements were determined with infrared spectroscopy in 5 clinically relevant scenarios. Scenarios included: using each cement in a dual-polymerizable mode (mixing of 2 pastes); light polymerizing curing through Mylar sheets (dual-Mylar), which served as the control; light polymerizing through 3-mm porcelain (dual-3 mm); and no exposure to light (dual-no light). The single-component light-polymerizable product was also tested as follows: exposed directly through Mylar (light-Mylar) or exposed through 3 mm of porcelain (light-3 mm). Results. For each product, dual-Mylar treatment yielded the highest conversion value of all treatments (control for each product). For all products, dual-3 mm conversion was at least 97% of control and equivalent to control, with the exception of Lute-It!. Dual-no light conversion was less than control treatment but at least 86% of control for all products except for Variolink II (62% of control). For all products in dual-no light mode, except Choice and Variolink II, conversion was at least equal to the light-Mylar values. Only 1 product (Variolink II) did not demonstrate increased conversion values for dual-Mylar compared with light-Mylar treatments. For most other products (Calibra, Insure, and Lute-It!), conversion values for light-3 mm were significantly less than for light-Mylar. Conversion values for Nexus, Choice, and Variolink II were equivalent between light-Mylar and light-3 mm treatments.
CONCLUSION
The choice of a dual-polymerizable cement should be based on its intended use because not all products polymerize adequately in every clinical situation. Although no cement met the stated criteria for an "all-purpose" cement, those tested did produce a range of product-specific results.