M Jyothi¹, K Chandrasekharan Nair²*, Vahini Reddy³ and Jayakar Shetty⁴

¹Associate Professor of Prosthodontics, M R Ambedkar Dental College, Bangalore, India
²Professor Emeritus, Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Sankara Dental College, Akathumuri, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
³Professor and Head of the Department of Prosthodontics, Oxford Dental College, Bangalore, India
⁴Former Professor and Principal, AECS Maaruti College of Dental Sciences, Bangalore, India

*Corresponding Author: K Chandrasekharan Nair, Professor Emeritus, Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Sankara Dental College, Akathumuri, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.

Received: September 04, 2023; Published: September 26, 2023

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the effect of two restorative surfaces viz. Nickel-chromium alloy and IPS Empress ceramic on the contact angle of two luting agents- Glass ionomer cement and Zinc phosphate cement. 2.To compare the effect of different fit checking materials viz. fit checker silicone and Occlusion spray on the contact angle of luting agents. 3.To compare the effect of different cleaning methods viz. Steam cleaning, Ultrasonic cleaning, Liquid detergent, water and alcohol on the contact angle of luting agents.

Materials and Methods: Disc shaped specimens (20 x 2mm) were prepared in IPS Empress ceramic and Nickel chromium alloy. Glass ionomer and zinc phosphate cement were dispensed on the discs and the contact angle was measured using Contour and Roughness Tester with the help of Ultra contour software. Fit indicating materials - Fit checker silicone and Okklean occlusion spray were applied on the discs and subsequently cleaned with various cleaning methods mentioned above. The cements were dispensed again and the contact angle was measured. Data was statistically analyzed using factorial ANOVA.

Results: Ceramic surface recorded a mean contact angle of 77.57 ± 11.44o and metal surface recorded a mean contact angle of 84.12 ± 9.94o irrespective of the type of luting cement used. After the application of fit checker silicone mean contact angle recorded was 86.74 ± 9.57o and after Okklean occlusion spray the contact angle recorded was 78.95 ± 11.27o. Without the application of fit checking material, the mean contact angle recorded was 76.84 ± 10.21. With Glass ionomer the contact angle was 72.69 ± 8.030 and with zinc phosphate the contact angle was 89 ± 7.310. When no cleaning method was employed after the application of fit checking material, the contact angle was 83.98 ± 10.47o. After cleaning with alcohol, the mean contact angle was 74.30 ± 10.12o; with liquid detergent 79.21 ± 9.06o; steam cleaning 85.19 ± 10.32o; ultrasonic cleaning 81.68 ± 11.05o and with water the mean contact angle was 80.71 ± 12.62o. The results obtained were statistically significant (p ˂ 0.001).

Conclusions: Wettability of metal and ceramic surfaces decreased when treated with fit checking materials. Glass ionomer cements have better wettability than zinc phosphate cement irrespective of the surfaces (ceramic/metal), fit indicating materials (occlusion spray/fit checker) and cleaning methods. Amongst the cleaning agents employed to restore the wetting properties of ceramic and metallic surfaces, alcohol proved to be superior. Detergents, water, ultrasonic cleaning and steam followed in a decreasing order

Keywords: Nickel-chromium alloy, IPS Empress ceramic, contact angle, Glass ionomer cement, Zinc phosphate cement, Alcohol, Liquid detergent, Steam cleaning, Ultrasonic cleaning, Water.

References

1. Piwowarczyk A., et al. “Microleakage of various cementing agents for full cast crowns”. Dental Materials 21 (2005): 445-453.
2. Ushiwata O., et al. “Marginal fit of nickel-chromium copings before and after internal adjustments with duplicated stone dies and disclosing agent”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 83 (2000): 634-643.
3. DA Kaiser and HB Wise. “Fitting cast gold restorations with the aid of disclosing wax”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry2 (1980): 227-228.
4. DB Evans. “Halothane and rouge: an alternative to chloroform and rouge as a disclosing medium”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry2 (1995): 209-211.
5. GR Troendle and KB Troendle. “Polyvinyl siloxane as a disclosing medium”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry6 (1992): 983-984.
6. Shetty MS and Shenoy KK. “Techniques for Evaluating the Fit of Removable and Fixed Prosthesis” ISRN Dentistry (2011): 348372.
7. Marfenko S., et al. “Treatment of surface contamination of lithium disilicate ceramic before adhesive luting”. American Journal of Dentistry 1 (2020): 33-38.
8. Yoshida K. “Influence of cleaning methods on the bond strength of resin cement to saliva-contaminated lithium disilicate ceramic”. Clinical Oral Investigations 6 (2020): 2091-2097.
9. Fagan Junior J., et al. “Evaluation of cleaning methods on lithium disilicate glass ceramic surface after organic contamination Operative Dentistry 2 (2022): E81-E90.
10. Lyann SK., et al. “Efficacy of various surface treatments on the bonding performance of saliva-contaminated lithiumdisilicate ceramics”. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 1 (2019): 51-58.
11. Marchioro RR., et al. “Influence of Fit-checking Material and Cleaning Protocols on the Bond Strength of Lithium Disilicate Glass-ceramics”. Operative Dentistry 47-6 (2022): E264-E272.
12. Keys LG. “An alternate method of verifying the seating of all-ceramic restorations”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 87 (2002): 411.
13. Watanabe T. “Wettability of ceramic surfaces- A wide range control of surface wettability from super hydophilicity to super hydrophobicity, from static wettability to dynamic wettability”. Journal of the Ceramic Society of Japan12 (2009): 1285-1292.
14. Preoteasa CT., et al. “Wettability of some dental materials. Optoelectronics and advanced materials”. Rapid communications8 (2011): 874-878.
15. Millstein PL., et al. “Effect of a silicone fit-indicator on crown retention in vitro”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 62 (1989): 510-511.
16. Hammad IA and Amri MA. “The effect of two fit-indicating materials and various subsequent cleaning methods on the retention of simulated crowns”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 99 (2008): 46-53.
17. Shillingburg HT., et al. “Fundamentals of fixed Prosthodontics”. 3^rd edition, Canada, Quintessence Publications (2002): 392.
18. Lorren RA., et al. “The contact angles of die stone on impression materials”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2 (1976): 176-180.
19. Moshaverinia A., et al. “Surface properties and bond strength measurements of N-vinylcaprolactam (NVC)-containing glass-ionomer cements”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 105 (2011): 181-193.
20. Rosenstiel SF., et al. “Contemporary fixed prosthodontics”. 4^th edition, India, Mosby publication (2010): 771-772.
21. Quaas AC., et al. “Influence of metal cleaning methods on the resin bond strength to NICR alloy”. Dental Material 21 (2005): 192-200.
22. Al- Zain SA. “The effect of different metal cleaning methods on retention of cast crown”. Egyptian Dental Journal 52 (2006): 2087-2092.

Citation

Citation: M Jyothi., et al. “Effect of Fit Checking Materials and Cleaning Methods on the Contact Angle of Luting Agents- an In Vitro Study Conducted on Metallic and Ceramic Surfaces".Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 7.10 (2023): 113-123.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2023 K Chandrasekharan Nair., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.