Jum'ah AA, Creanor S, Wilson NHF, Burke FJT, Brunton PA. Dental practice in the UK in 2015/2016: Part 3. Aspects of indirect restorations and fixed prosthodontics. Br Dent J. 2019; 226:192-196
Randall RC, Wilson NHF. Glass ionomer restoratives: a systematic review of a secondary caries treatment effect. J Dent Res. 1999; 78:628-637
Papagiannoulis L, Kakaboura A, Eliades G. In vivo vs in vitro anticariogenic behaviour of glass-ionomer and resin composite restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2002; 18:561-569
Cury JA, de Oliveira BH, dos Santos APP, Tenuta LMA. Are fluoride releasing dental materials clinically effective on caries control?. Dent Mater. 2016; 32:323-333
Pameijer CH, Jefferies SR. Retentive properties and film thickness of 18 luting agents and systems. Gen Dent. 1996; 44:524-530
Zidan O, Ferguson GC. The retention of complete crowns prepared with three different tapers and luted with four different cements. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89:565-571
Heintze SD. Crown pull off test (crown retention test) to evaluate the bonding effectiveness of luting agents. Dent Mater. 2010; 26:193-206
Burke FJT, Qualtrough AJE, Hale RW. Dentin-bonded all-ceramic crowns: current status. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998; 129:455-460
Burke FJT. Maximising the fracture resistance of dentine-bonded all-ceramic crowns. J Dent. 1999; 27:169-173
Burke FJT. Four year performance of dentine-bonded all-ceramic crowns. Br Dent J. 2007; 202:269-274
Hill EE, Lott J. A clinically focused discussion of luting materials. Aust Dent J. 2011; 56:67-76
Burke FJT, Fleming GJP, Nathanson D, Marquis PM. Are adhesive technologies needed to support ceramics? An assessment of the current evidence. J Adhes Dent. 2002; 4:7-22
De la Macorra JC, Pradies G. Conventional and adhesive luting cements. Clin Oral Investig. 2002; 6:198-204
Attar N, Tam LE, McComb D. Mechanical and physical properties of contemporary dental luting agents. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89:127-134
Han L, Okamoto A, Fukushima M, Okiji T. Evaluation of physical properties and surface degradation of self-adhesive resin cements. Dent Mater J. 2007; 26:906-914
Burke FJT, Crisp RJ, Richter B. A practice-based evaluation of the handling of a new self-adhesive universal resin luting material. Int Dent J. 2006; 56:142-146
Christensen GJ. Clinical Research Associates. CRA Newsletter. 2003a; 27
Christensen GJ. Clinical Research Associates. CRA Newsletter. 2003b; 27:1-2
Burke FJT, Crisp RJ, Cowan AJ, Lamb J, Thompson O, Tulloch N. Five-year clinical evaluation of zirconia-based bridges in patients in UK general dental practices. J Dent. 2013; 41:992-999
Thompson O, Tulloch N, Crisp RJ, Burke FJT. A case series of zirconia-based bridges luted with a self-adhesive resin luting material at 12 years, in patients in UK general dental practices. Eur J Prosthodont Rest Dent. 2018; (Spec Issue)17-20
The Dental Advisor. 3M™ RelyX™ Unicem Self-Adhesive Resin Cement. 15-year clinical performance. Dental Consultants Inc. 2016;
Burke FJT, Fleming GJP, Abbas G, Richter B. Effectiveness of a self-adhesive resin luting system on fracture resistance of teeth restored with dentine-bonded crowns. Eur J Prosthodont Rest Dent. 2006; 14:185-188
Ibbetson R. Clinical considerations for adhesive bridgework. Dent Update. 2004; 31:254-265
Burke FJT, Lucarotti PSK. Eleven year survival of bridges placed in the general dental services in England and Wales. J Dent. 2012; 40:886-895
Kern M. Fifteen-year survival of anterior all-ceramic cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses. J Dent. 2017; 56:133-135
Van Landuyt KL, Yoshida Y, Hirata I, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Okazaki M, Suzuki K, Lambrehts P, Van Meerbeck B. Influence of the chemical structure of functional monomers on their adhesive performance. J Dent Res. 2008; 87:757-761
Kern M, Passia N, Sasse M, Yazigi C. Ten-year outcome of zirconia ceramic cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses and the influence of the reasons for missing incisors. J Dent. 2017; 65:51-55
Luting materials are a central component of indirect dentistry, with the most recently introduced types being resin-based materials. These may be classified into conventional resin luting materials, self-adhesive resin luting materials and ‘smart’ resin luting materials. Their physical properties have been found to be good, with no risk of dissolution in the dilute organic acids found in plaque, such as occurs with phosphate and glass ionomer cements. Uses of resin luting materials include the luting of any indirect restoration, but these materials have facilitated the development of the resin-retained bridge and aesthetic ceramic or composite restorations, notwithstanding the fact that they may provide, for the first time, truly adhesive luting of crowns and inlays.
CPD/Clinical Relevance: Resin luting materials are appropriate for placement of all indirect restorations: the self-adhesive variants have simplified the use of such materials.
Article
Luting materials are a central component of indirect dentistry. These, essentially, fill the void at the interface between the restoration and tooth (or implant) and therefore must fulfil basic mechanical, biological and handling requirements.1
Zinc phosphate cement was introduced circa 125 years ago. Despite its shortcomings, which include solubility in the dilute organic acids found in plaque, and poor tensile strength, it remains in use by some practitioners. In this regard, results of a recent survey of 500 UK-based general dental practitioners (GDPs) indicated that 14.6% of respondents continued to use phosphate cement for cementation of metal-ceramic single unit crowns.3 It could be considered to be a ‘passive’ luting material, insofar that it simply fills the space between the restoration and the tooth, without adhering to either.
The introduction of glass ionomer (GI) cement facilitated the development of a luting material derived from the same technology in the late 1970s. These cements contain an ion-leachable fluoro-alumino-silicate (FAS) glass which reacts with an aqueous poly(alkenoic) acid, with the outer layers of the FAS glass being dissolved, leading to the release of Ca2+, Al3+ and F- ions. While fluoride is released, this is not considered to have any cariostatic effect in vivo.4,5,6 These luting materials proved popular, but again had suboptimal physical properties and, like phosphate cement, were soluble in dilute organic acids.
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
