American journal of dentistry · 2026
Wear resistance of self-adhesive and universal resin luting cements.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Oshika Miyuki, Odagiri Yukari, Yoneyama Kami, Latta Mark A, Barkmeier Wayne W, Tsujimoto Akimasa
Аннотация
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.
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.