2002PubMedRequires access

Comparison of pulpal sensitivity between a conventional and two resin-modified glass ionomer luting cements.

Roger J. Smales, Martin Gale

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

This clinical study compared handling and any short-term tooth sensitivity associated with using one conventional and two resin-modified glass ionomer cements marketed for luting gold and ceramometal crowns. The patient's response to a 10-second blast of air applied to the vital tooth was scored pre-operatively and again within a one-to-four week post-cementation recall period. A score was also recorded for any sensitivity present at the time of cementation of the crown on the unanesthetized tooth. All three cements were easy to mix and place. Most of the teeth had no response to pulpal stimulation pre-operatively, associated with the cementation procedure or post-cementation, and there were no instances of severe sensitivity recorded. For all cements, the level of post-cementation tooth sensitivity was similar, and less than that found pre-operatively.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This clinical study compared handling and any short-term tooth sensitivity associated with using one conventional and two resin-modified glass ionomer cements marketed for luting gold and ceramometal crowns. The patient's response to a 10-second blast of air applied to the vital tooth was scored pre-operatively and again within a one-to-four week post-cementation recall period. A score was also recorded for any sensitivity present at the time of cementation of the crown on the unanesthetized tooth. All three cements were easy to mix and place. Most of the teeth had no response to pulpal stimulation pre-operatively, associated with the cementation procedure or post-cementation, and there were no instances of severe sensitivity recorded. For all cements, the level of post-cementation tooth sensitivity was similar, and less than that found pre-operatively.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This clinical study compared handling and any short-term tooth sensitivity associated with using one conventional and two resin-modified glass ionomer cements marketed for luting gold and ceramometal crowns. The patient's response to a 10-second blast of air applied to the vital tooth was scored pre-operatively and again within a one-to-four week post-cementation recall period. A score was also recorded for any sensitivity present at the time of cementation of the crown on the unanesthetized tooth. All three cements were easy to mix and place. Most of the teeth had no response to pulpal stimulation pre-operatively, associated with the cementation procedure or post-cementation, and there were no instances of severe sensitivity recorded. For all cements, the level of post-cementation tooth sensitivity was similar, and less than that found pre-operatively.

Key concepts: Cementation (geology), Glass ionomer cement, Dentistry, Crown (dentistry), Materials science, Luting agent, Tooth Sensitivity, Cement

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of pulpal sensitivity between a conventional and two resin-modified glass ionomer luting cements. — Research Paper | ScholarLens