SOLUBILITY OF FOUR DENTAL LUTING CEMENTS

Journal of International Dental And Medical Research ISSN 1309-100X 

http://www.ektodermaldisplazi.com/journal.htm 

Solubility Of Dental Luting Cements 

Ali Abdul Wahab Razooki Al-Shekhli 

SOLUBILITY OF FOUR DENTAL LUTING CEMENTS 

Ali Abdul Wahab Razooki Al-Shekhli 1 * 

1* B.D.S.,MSc, Ph.D.; Assistant Prof., Faculty of Dentistry, Ajman University of Science & technology, UAE. 

Abstract 

Solubility is an important feature in assessing the clinical durability of luting cements. 

Solubility may cause degradation of the cement, leading to debonding of the restoration and 

recurrent decay. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare water solubility values of luting 

resin cement with other three conventional luting cements 

Four commercial dental luting cement materials were selected: GIC cement (SPOFA 

DENTAL a.s ,Markova 238), Zinc polycarboxylate cement (SS White Group.P.C.I,Unit 9 Madleaze 

Estate, Bristol Road, England), Zinc Phosphate cement (SPOFA DENTAL a.s Praha, Cernok.) and 

Resin cement (Densply Caulk 38 West Clarke Ave,U.S.A). Ten disc specimens were prepared for 

each cement material using a stainless steel mold with 10 mm in inner diameter and 2 mm in 

thickness. Water solubility of different cement materials were calculated by weighting the samples 

before and after water immersion (15 days) and desiccation. Data were analyzed by one-way 

ANOVA and Student t-test at 5% level of significance. 

Statistical analysis of data by using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that, 

there was statistically significant difference (P





Material and Methods 

Four commercial dental luting cement 

materials were selected: GIC cement (SPOFA 

DENTAL a.s ,Markova 238), Zinc polycarboxylate 

cement (SS White Group.P.C.I,Unit 9 Madleaze 

Estate, Bristol Road, England), Zinc Phosphate 

cement (SPOFA DENTAL a.s Praha, Cernok.) 

and Resin cement (Densply Caulk 38 West 

Clarke Ave,U.S.A). 

Ten disc specimens were prepared for 

each cement material using a stainless steel 

mold with 10 mm in inner diameter and 2 mm in 

thickness (Figure 1). 

All the cements were mixed according to 

the manufacturer's instructions. The materials 

were placed in the mould and pressed between 

two plastic matrix strips and glass microscope 

slides under hand pressure to extrude any 

excess material. After specimens were removed 

from the mold, any excess material was removed 

by gentle, dry grinding on both sides. 

The specimens were transferred to an air 

oven and dried for 2 hours at 37°C. Then the 

specimens were transferred a desiccator 

containing silica gel, freshly dried for 2 hours at 

20°C. The specimens were weighed using an 

analytical balance to an accuracy of ± 0.1 mg. 

This cycle was repeated until a constant mass 

(m 0 ) was obtained. For each cement material, ten 

specimens were prepared (n=10) and placed in a 

glass vial containing 20 ml distilled water, The 

vials were wrapped in aluminum foil to exclude 

light and placed in an incubator at 37°C for 15 

days. 

The specimens were placed in desiccator 

using the same cycle as described above but the 

temperature was 58 °C to obtain (m 1 ). This cycle 

was repeated until constant mass was obtained. 

The values of solubility S were calculated using 

the following equations (ISO 4049:2000): S= m 0 - 

m 1 /V 

Where m 0 is the specimen mass before 

water immersion (mg), m 1 is the specimen mass 

after immersion and desiccation (mg), and V is 

the specimen volume before immersion (mm 3 ). 

For each group, the means and standard 

deviations for solubility were calculated. 

Statistical analysis for cement solubility values 

was performed using one-way ANOVA and t-test 

at a significance level of 0.05. 

Figure 1. The composite stainless steel mould 

used in this study. 

Results 

Table (1) summarizes solubility means 

(Figure 2) and standard deviations (in 

parenthesis) of glass ionomer, Zinc phosphate, 

Zinc polycarboxylate, and resin cement 

respectively in µg/mm3. 

Statistical analysis of data by using oneway 

analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that, 

there was statistically significant difference 

(P





Figure 2. Solubility means in µg/mm 3 for the 

four cement groups. 

Table 2. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) 

test. 

Further analysis of the data was needed 

to examine the differences between different 

pairs of groups using the t-test analysis and 

indicated that, pairs no. 2, 4 & 5 showed 

statistically insignificant difference ( P > 0.05) 

while pairs no. 1, 3 & 6 showed statistically 

significant difference ( P < 0.05 ) Table (3). 

Table 3. t-test for different pairs of cement 

groups analysis. 

Discussion 

Solubility or leaching of cement 

components has a potential impact on both its 

structural stability and biocompatibility. The rate 

of dissolution can be influenced by the conditions 

of the test. Other factors may include time of 

dissolution, concentration of the solute in the 

dissolution medium, pH of the medium, specimen 

shape and thickness, and powder/liquid ratio of 

cement 17 . 

The chemical structure of the solutions 

used for in vitro tests is important because it has 

to simulate the complexity of the oral 

environment. The in vitro tests made are only 

static solubility tests because they do not 

simulate the pH and temperature changes of the 

oral cavity 18 . Clinical conditions vary, even within 

the same person, making it virtually impossible to 

reproduce a natural environment 19 . It was 

reported in previous studies that long–time 

storage in water affected the mechanical 

properties of the cements 20 . 

21 

Cattani-Lorente et al. found that 

deterioration of the physical properties of the 

cements after long–term storage in an aqueous 

environment could be related to the water 

absorption of these materials. Part of the 

absorbed water acted as a plasticizer, inducing a 

decrease in strength. Weakening resulted to 

erosion and plasticizing effect of water. In our 

study, the glass ionomer cement exhibited the 

highest mean solubility value followed by zinc 

phosphate cement, polycarboxylate cement and 

resin cement exhibited the lowest mean solubility 

value (Figure 2). 

Polycarboxylate cement is much less 

soluble during immersion in distilled water. In 

contrast, the resin cements are basically 

insoluble, but may release small amounts of 

unpolymerized monomer constituents. Therefore, 

the main cause behind the high solubility values 

of the glass ionomer cement could be related to 

the fact that, glass ionomer cements are 

sensitive to water erosion. It may probably be 

due to same hydrolysis of the cement 

components. This phenomenon is apparently 

aggravated in oral environment due to the 

presence of aggressive compounds in the 

saliva 22 . 

Clinical success with glass ionomer 

cements depends on early protection from both 

hydration and dehydration. It is weakened by 

early exposure to moisture, while desiccation, on 

the other hand, produces shrinkage cracks in the 

recently set cement 23 . Some studies conclude 

that glass ionomer cements are more resistant to 

degradation than zinc phosphate cements, 

although Knibbs and Walls 

24 reported that 

marginal defects around crowns appeared 

sooner with glass ionomer than with zinc 

Volume 3 · Number · 3 · 2010 Page 106





phosphate, possibly because of the greater 

susceptibility of glass ionomer to contamination 

by moisture and this finding is in consistence with 

the results of this study. 

Conclusions 

Resin cement had the highest resistance 

to solubility followed by polycarboxylate, zinc 

phosphate and glass ionomer which exhibited the 

least resistance to solubility in this study. 

Declaration of Interest 

The authors report no conflict of interest 

and the article is not funded or supported by any 

research grant. 

References 

1998 Apr;25(4): 285-91. 

16- Umino A, Nikaido T, Tsuchiya S, Foxton RM, Tagami J. 

Confocal laser scanning microscopic observations of secondary 

caries inhibition around different types of luting cements. Am J 

Dent 2005 Aug;18(4):245-50. 

17- Wison AD. Specification test for the solubility and disintegration 

of dental cements: a critical evaluation of its meaning. J Dent 

Res 1976 Sep-Oct;55(5):721-9. 

18- Yap A, Lee CM. Water sorption and solubility of resin-modified 

polyalkenoate cements. J Oral Rehabil 1997; 24: 310-314. 

19- Macorra JC, Praides G. Conventional and adhesive luting 

cements. Clin Oral Invest 2002; 6: 198-204. 

20- Cattani-Lorente MA, Godin C, Meyer JM. Mechanical behavior 

of glass ionomer cements affected by long–term storage in 

water. Dent Mater 1994; 10: 37-44. 

21- Cattani-Lorente MA, Dupuis V, Payan J, Moya F, Meyer JM. 

Effect of water on the physical properties of resin-modified 

glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 1999; 15: 71- 79. 

22- Fukasawa M, Matsuya S, Yamane M. The mechanism for 

erosion of glass-ionomer cements in organic-acid buffer 

solutions. J Dent Res 1990; 69: 1175-1179. 

23- McLean JW Clinical applications of glass ionomer cements. 

Oper Dent 1992; 17: 184-190. 

24- Knibbs PJ, Walls AWG. A laboratory and clinical evaluation of 

three dental luting cements. J Oral Rehabil 1989; 16: 467-473. 

1- Phillips RW, Swartz ML, Lund MS, Moore BK, Vickery J. In vivo 

disintegration of luting cements. J Am Dent Assoc 1987; 

114:489-492. 

2- Watts DC, Kisumbi BK, Toworfe GK. Dimensional changes of 

resin/ionomer restoratives in aqueous and neutral media. Dent 

Mater 2000; 16:89-96. 

3- Yesil Z. Üç farkli yapistirici simanin tutuculuk kuvvetlerinin 

incelenmesi (The comparison of bond strength of three different 

adhesive cements). Atatürk Üniv Dis Hek Fak Derg 1998; 8:34- 

38. 

4- Bayindir F, Yesil Duymus Z, Yanikoglu N. Daimi yapistirma 

isleminde kullanilan dört farkli simanin mikrosizintisinin 

karsilastirilmasi (The investigation of microleakage of four 

different cements for use in permanent cementation). Atatürk 

Üniv Dis Hek Fak Derg 2001; 1:22-26. 

5- Yesil Duymus Z D rt geçici yapistirma simaninin tutuculuk 

kuvvetlerinin incelenmesi (The examination of retentive strength 

of four temporary cement). Ege Üniv Dis Hek Fak Derg 2000; 

3:121-126. 

6- Mesu FP. Degradation of luting cements measured in vitro. J 

Dent Res 1982; 61:665-672. 

7- Mitra SB. Adhesion to dentin and physical properties of a lightcured 

glass-ionomer liner/base. J Dent Res 1991; 70:72-74. 

8- Nicholson JW, Aggarwal A,Czarnecka B,Limanowska- Shaw H. 

The rate of change of pH of lactic acid exposed to glassionomer 

dental cements. Biomaterials 2000; 21:1989-1993. 

9- Patel M, Tawfik H, Myint Y, Brocklehurst D, Nicholson JW. 

Factors affecting the ability of dental cements to alter the pH 

lactic acid solutions. J Oral Rehabil 2000; 27:1030-1033. 

10- Lewin WA. An evaluation of the film thickness of resin luting 

agents. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62:175-178. 

11- White SN, Sorensen JA, Kang SK, Caputo AA. Microleakage of 

new crown and fixed partial denture luting agents. J Prosthet 

Dent 1992; 67:156-161. 

12- Aboush YEH, Jerkins CBG. The bonding of an adhesive resin 

cement to single and combined adherent encountered in resin 

bonded bridge work. Brit Dent J 1991; 171:166-169. 

13- Cardash HS, Baharav H, Pilo R, Ben-Amar A. The effect of 

porcelain color on the hardness of luting composite resin 

cement. J Prosthet Dent 1993; 69:620- 623. 

14- Hasegawa EA, Boyer DB, Chan DC. Hardening of dual-cured 

cements under composite resin inlays. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 

66:187-192. 

15- Yoshida K, Tanagawa M, Atsuta M. In vitro solubility of three 

types of resin and conventional luting cements. J Oral Rehabil 

Volume 3 · Number · 3 · 2010 Page 107

SOLUBILITY OF FOUR DENTAL LUTING CEMENTS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?