In vitro wear simulation measurements of composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer luting cements for all-ceramic restorations

Roberto R. Braga, John R. Condon, Jack L. Ferracane

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

17 Scopus citations


Background: Although composite cements are generally indicated for cementation of all-ceramic restorations, some manufacturers of dental cements propose that resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGIs) may be used for cementation of high-strength ceramic restorations. Purpose: This study was undertaken to compare the in vitro abrasion and attrition wear of two dual-cure cements (in dual-cure and self-cure modes) and two RMGI cements when placed between ceramic and enamel to simulate the margin of a restoration. Methods: Rectangular fragments of pressed ceramic (Empress 2) were cemented between the halves of bovine incisors sectioned mesiodistally, using one of the following materials: RelyX ARC, Variolink II, RelyX Luting, or ProTec CEM. The two resin cements were tested in dual-cure and self-cure modes. A three-body wear test was performed in the new Oregon Health Sciences University (OHSU) oral wear simulator (100,000 cycles; abrasion load: 20 N; attrition load: 90 N). Degree of conversion of resin cements was determined by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Results were analyzed by analysis of variance and Tukey's test (p = .05). Epoxy replicas of wear specimens were observed in the scanning electron microscope. Results: No significant differences in abrasion wear (RelyX ARC dual-cure: 11 ± 4.4 μm; RelyX ARC self-cure: 17 ± 7.0 μm; Variolink dual-cure: 14 ± 8.6 μm; Variolink self-cure: 23 ± 10.7 μm) or attrition wear (RelyX ARC dual-cure: 18 ± 6.4 pm; RelyX ARC self-cure: 31 ± 4.5 μm; Variolink dual-cure: 32 ± 6.8 μm; Variolink self-cure: 39 ± 15.9 μm) were found between activation modes of the resin cements. ProTec CEM (32 ± 8.7 μm) showed abrasion similar to that of Variolink II and RelyX ARC self-cure. Resin-modified glass ionomers showed more attrition wear than the resin cements (ProTec CEM: 62 ± 13.0 μm; RelyX Luting: 69 ± 7.1 μm). RelyX ARC showed a similar degree of conversion for both activation modes (dual-cure: 70 ± 4.3%; self-cure: 68 ± 1.2%), but Variolink II had a higher degree of conversion in dual-cure mode (67 ± 0.5% vs 60 ± 1.0%). Cement wear was accompanied by marginal breakdown and increased surface roughness of enamel and ceramic. Conclusions: The activation mode of resin cements did not influence their wear resistance. The RMGIs underwent higher attrition wear than the resin cements.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)368-376
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
Issue number6
StatePublished - 2002

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Dentistry


Dive into the research topics of 'In vitro wear simulation measurements of composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer luting cements for all-ceramic restorations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this