Evaluation of mechanical properties of several dual-cure resin cements by curing modes

중합방법에 따른 여러 이중중합 레진 시멘트의 기계적 성질 평가

  • Kim, Soo-Yeon (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Park, Se-Hee (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Kim, Jin-Woo (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Cho, Kyung-Mo (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University)
  • 김수연 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 박세희 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 김진우 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 조경모 (강릉원주대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실)
  • Received : 2014.10.27
  • Accepted : 2015.01.08
  • Published : 2015.03.31


Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mechanical properties of several dual-cure cements by different curing modes. Materials and Methods: One resin-modified glass ionomer cement (FujiCEM 2), two conventional dual-cure resin cements (RelyX ARC, Multilink N), and two dual-cure self-adhesive resin cements (RelyX U200, G-CEM LinkAce) were used. To evaluate the influence of the curing methods, each cements divided into four conditions (n = 20); Condition 1: self-curing for 10 minutes, Condition 2: immediate after 20 seconds light-curing, Condition 3: 24 hours after self-curing, Condition 4: 24 hours after light-curing. The compressive strength and diametral tensile strength were measured with a universal testing machine. All data were statistically analyzed using t-test, one-way ANOVA and Scheffe's test. Results: The results showed the compressive strength and diametral tensile strength after 24 hours in all curing modes were higher than immediate except RelyX ARC light-cured and Multilink N light-cured. The FujiCEM 2 showed lowest values (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The outcome was cement-depend, but there is no significant difference about compressive strength and diametral tensile strength between dual-cure self-adhesive resin cements and conventional resin cements. And this result will be used as a base line data selecting resin cement for favorable long-term prognosis.


Supported by : 강릉원주대학교


  1. The korean academy of conservative dentistry. Operative dentistry. 4th ed. Seoul; DaehanNarae publibhing Inc.; 2003. p. 217-20.
  2. Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC. Mechanical properties of luting cements after water storage. Oper Dent 2003;28:535-42.
  3. Li ZC, White SN. Mechanical properties of dental luting cements. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:597-609.
  4. The korea professor conference for dental materials. Dental materials. 4th ed. Seoul; Koonja publishing Inc.; 2006. p. 46-50, 237-8.
  5. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Crispin BJ. Dental luting agents: a review of the current literature. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:280-301.
  6. Smales RJ, Webster DA. Restoration deterioration related to later failure. Oper Dent 1993;18:130-7.
  7. de la Macorra JC, Pradies G. Conventional and adhesive luting cements. Clin Oral Investig 2002;6:198-204.
  8. Ferracane JL, Stansbury JW, Burke FJ. Self-adhesive resin cements - chemistry, properties and clinical considerations. J Oral Rehabil 2011;38:295-314.
  9. Yuzugullu B, Ciftci Y, Saygili G, Canay S. Diametral tensile and compressive strengths of several types of core materials. J Prosthodont 2008;17:102-7.
  10. Cattani-Lorente MA, Godin C, Meyer JM. Early strength of glass ionomer cements. Dent Mater 1993;9:57-62.
  11. Ban S, Hasegawa J, Anusavice KJ. Effect of loading conditions on bi-axial flexure strength of dental cements. Dent Mater 1992;8:100-4.
  12. White SN, Yu Z. Physical properties of fixed prosthodontic, resin composite luting agents. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:384-9.
  13. Canay S, Hersek N, Akca K, Ciftci Y. The effect of weight loss of liquid on the diametral tensile strengths of various kinds of luting cements. Int Dent J 1996;46:52-8.
  14. Scherrer SS, de Rijk WG, Belser UC, Meyer JM. Effect of cement film thickness on the fracture resistance of a machinable glass-ceramic. Dent Mater 1994;10:172-7.
  15. Mueller HJ. Fracture toughness and fractography of dental cements, lining, build-up, and filling materials. Scanning Microsc 1990;4:297-307.
  16. Editor. Book ISO Specifications 9917-1. City; 2007. Chapter Chapter, ISO Specifications 9917-1.
  17. Yap AU, Cheang PH, Chay PL. Mechanical properties of two restorative reinforced glass-ionomer cements. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:682-8.
  18. Ferracane JL. Correlation between hardness and degree of conversion during the setting reaction of unfilled dental restorative resins. Dent Mater 1985;1:11-4.
  19. Pegoraro TA, da Silva NR, Carvalho RM. Cements for use in esthetic dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2007;51:453-71, x.
  20. Manso AP, Silva NR, Bonfante EA, Pegoraro TA, Dias RA, Carvalho RM. Cements and adhesives for all-ceramic restorations. Dent Clin North Am 2011;55:311-32, ix.
  21. Rueggeberg FA, Caughman WF. The influence of light exposure on polymerization of dual-cure resin cements. Oper Dent 1993;18:48-55.
  22. Song CK, Park SH, Kim JW, Cho KM. Physical properties of different automixing resin cements and the shear bond strength on dentin. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci 2009;25:435-42.
  23. Diaz-Arnold AM, Vargas MA, Haselton DR. Current status of luting agents for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:135-41.
  24. Gerth HU, Dammaschke T, Zuchner H, Schafer E. Chemical analysis and bonding reaction of RelyX Unicem and Bifix composites-a comparative study. Dent Mater 2006;22:934-41.
  25. Vrochari AD, Eliades G, Hellwig E, Wrbas KT. Curing efficiency of four self-etching, self-adhesive resin cements. Dent Mater 2009;25:1104-8.