PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 27, 2026Dental Hypotheses0 citationsOpen Access

Evaluation of Microleakage Following Demineralization among Different Fluoride Releasing Luting Cements for Bands Used in Space Maintainers: An In Vitro Study

View Full Paper
LMLawal MohammedHAHaider Mohammed Ali Ahmed

Key Points

  • The research aims to evaluate and compare the microleakage of various luting cements used for space maintainers.
  • Used 40 extracted primary human molars divided into four groups.
  • Teeth were demineralized in an acidic solution for 4 weeks.
  • Submerged teeth in 10% methylene blue for 24 hours at 37°C.
  • Examined depth of dye penetration with an 80X stereomicroscope.
  • No significant difference in microleakage between light-cured resin cement and control group (P = 0.135).
  • Significant differences observed between conventional GIC and control group (P < 0.001).
  • Conventional GIC and resin-reinforced GIC showed no significant difference (P = 0.930).
  • Resin-reinforced GIC had the lowest potential for enamel demineralization.

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the microleakage of three different types of luting cements for bands used in space maintainers. Methods: In total, 40 extracted primary human molars were used for the study and divided into four different groups: Group A: Control group, Group B: Conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), C: Light-cured resin cement, and Group D: Light-cured resin-reinforced GIC. The teeth were then demineralized in an acidic solution for 4 weeks and then submerged in a 10% solution of methylene blue for 24 h at 37°C. Following that, the teeth were buccolingually sectioned, and the depth of dye penetration was examined with an 80X stereomicroscope. Results: Post-hoc pairwise compressions showed a nonsignificant difference between light-cured resin cement and the control group ( P = 0.135). Conventional GIC and resin-reinforced GIC groups showed significant differences in the control group ( P < 0.001). The difference between conventional and resin-reinforced GIC was not significant ( P = 0.930). Conclusion: Resin-reinforced GIC exhibited the lowest potential for enamel demineralization, followed by conventional GIC.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Mohammed et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69c620ab15a0a509bde192d4https://doi.org/10.4103/denthyp.denthyp_111_23
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper