Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Invivo Comparative Evaluation of Tertiary Dentin Deposit to Three Different Luting Cements a Histopathological Study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society

Abstract

The aim of the study is to evaluate histopathologically the amount of tertiary dentin deposit stimulated by three different luting cements. With the informed consent for fifteen patients crown preparation was done for maxillary and mandibular premolar teeth which were scheduled for orthodontic extraction. Copings were cemented with three different luting cements zinc oxide eugenol, glass ionomer and zinc polycarboxylate which were classified as Groups A, B and C respectively. The teeth were later extracted and histopathologically analysed for pulpodentinal reactions using a control study group. Statistically Tukey-HSD procedure was used to identify the significant group and one way ANNOVA was used to analyse the thickness of tertiary dentin among the study group. Tertiary dentin was seen in most of the specimens. When the three groups were compared zinc oxide eugenol helps in stimulation of tertiary dentin formation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Graph 1
Graph 2
Graph 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Smith AJ, Cassidy N, Perry H, Begue-Kirn C, Ruch JV, Lessot H (1995) Reactionary dentinogenesis. Int J Biol 39:273–802

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baume LJ (1980) The biology of pulp and dentine. Monogr Oral Sci 8:159–182

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bhaskar SN (1990) Orban’s oral histology & embryology, 11th edn. Mosby, St. Louis

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cox CF, White KC, Ramus DL, Farmer JB, Snuggs HM (1992) Reparative dentin: factors affecting its deposition. Quintessence Int 23(4):257–270

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith AJ, Tobias RS, Cassidy N et al (1994) Odontoblast stimulation in ferrets by dentin matrix components. Arch Oral Biol 39(1):13–22

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lesot H, Smith AJ, Tziafas D, Beguekirn C, Cassidy N, Ruch JV (1994) Biologically active molecules and dental tissue repair: a comparative view of reactionary and reparative dentinogenesis with the induction of odontoblast differentiation in vitro. Cells Mater 4:199–218

    Google Scholar 

  7. Culling CFA, Allison RT, Barr WT (1985) Cellular pathology technique, 4th edn. Butterworths & Co., London, pp 27–78

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bancroft JD, Stevens A (1996) Theory & practice of histological techniques, 4th edn. Churchill Livingstone, London, pp 23–24

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tarim B, Hafez AA, Cox CF (1998) Pulpal response to a resin-modified glass-ionomer material on non exposed and exposed monkey pulps. Quintessence Int 29(8):535–542

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Santini A, Ivanovic A (1996) The quantification of tertiary dentin formation in response to materials commonly placed in deep cavities in general practice in the UK. Prim Dent Care 3(1):14–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Murray PE, Hafez AA, Smith AJ, Cox CF (2002) Bacterial microleakage and pulp inflammation associated with various restorative materials. J Dent Mater 118(6):470–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ivanovic V, Santini A (1989) Rate of formation of tertiary dentin in dog’s teeth in response to lining materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 67(6):684–688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Boderker CF, Applebaum E (1933) The variable permeability of the dentin and its relation to operative dentistry. Dent Cosmos 75:21–31

    Google Scholar 

  14. Pecora JD, COSTA WF, Campos GM (1990) A study of the dentinal permeability of the pulp chamber floor of human lower molars with separate roots. Braz Dent J 1(1):17–24

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Macchetti DD, Campos FS (1975) Comparative action of permeability of dentin of the pulp chamber in deciduous tooth. Odonto R Preto 12:119–130

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pashley DH, Pashley EL, Carvalho RM, Tay FR (2002) The effects of dentin permeability on restorative dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 46(2):211–245, v–vi

    Google Scholar 

  17. Moss SJ (1965) Histology study of pulpal floor of deciduous molars. J Am Dent Assoc 70:372–379

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sasso WS, Romani NF, Villa N (1960) Studied the dentin of human molars and identified the presence of reparative dentin on the molar tooth and was directly related to defence capacity of the pulp. Rev Fac Odont USP 4:191–203

    Google Scholar 

  19. Filipovic V, Ivanovic V, Pajic M (1989) Effect of remaining dentin thickness beneath deep cavities on the rate of reparative dentin formation—experimental study. Stomatol Glass Srb 36(5):393–399

    Google Scholar 

  20. Valcke CF, Cleaton-Jones PE, Austin JC, Forbes M, Sam C (1982) Pulpal response to the luting cements. J Dent Assoc S Afr 37(12):858–862

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Murray PE, About I, Gaysmith L (2000) Post operative pulpal and repair responses. J Am Dent Assoc 131:321–329

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mjor IA (2002) Pulp dentine biology in restorative dentistry. Part 7: the exposed pulp. Quintessence Int 33:113–135

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tziafas D, Lambrianidis T, Beltis P (1993) Inductive effect of native dentin on the dentinogenic potential of adult dog teeth. J Endod 19(3):116–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Horsted PB, Simonsen AM, Larsen MJ (1986) Monkey pulp reaction to restorative materials. Scand J Dent Res 94(2):154–163

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Venketeshwara Dental College, No. 66/7, Spurtank Road, Chetpet, Chennai, 6000031, India

    P. B. Yogesh

  2. Department of Oral Pathology, Meenakshi Ammal Dental College, Chennai, India

    M. Preethi

  3. Department of Prosthodontics, Sathyabama Dental College, Chennai, India

    Hari Babu

  4. Department of Oral Pathology, Sri Ramachandra Dental College, Chennai, India

    N. Malathi

Authors
  1. P. B. Yogesh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Preethi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hari Babu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. N. Malathi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. B. Yogesh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yogesh, P.B., Preethi, M., Babu, H. et al. Invivo Comparative Evaluation of Tertiary Dentin Deposit to Three Different Luting Cements a Histopathological Study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 13, 205–211 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0205-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-012-0205-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation