Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Different Desensitising Methods on the Retention of Crowns Cemented with Resin Modified GIC:An In-Vitro Study

Introductions: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the effect of three different desensitizing methods— Admira Protect, dentin bonding agent (Tetric N Bond), and diode laser—on the retention of porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) crowns cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). Methods: Forty extracted, non-carious human premolars were prepared for full-coverage crowns and divided into four groups (n = 10): Group I (Control, no desensitizer), Group II (Admira Protect), Group III (Dentin bonding agent), and Group IV (Diode laser). Standardized tooth preparations were performed and PFM crowns were fabricated and cemented using RMGIC (RelyX Luting 2, 3M ESPE). The crowns were subjected to tensile dislodgement forces using a universal testing machine, and peak dislodgement loads were recorded. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by post hoc comparisons. Results: Significant differences in crown retention were observed among the groups (p < 0.05). The control group exhibited the highest mean retention value (27.835 ± 0.790 kgf), followed by the diode laser group (25.607 ±1.054kgf), dentin bonding agent group (22.101 ± 0.871 kgf), and Admira Protect group (20.826 ± 0.862 kgf). Post hoc analysis revealed statistically significant differences between most groups, indicating that desensitizing agents can influence cement retention. Conclusions: Among the tested methods, diode laser treatment showed the least compromise in retention and can be considered a viable desensitizing option before cementation with RMGIC. Admira Protect significantly reduced retention values, possibly due to interference with the bonding mechanism of the cement. These findings highlight the importance of choosing appropriate desensitizing agents to balance sensitivity management and prosthesis retention.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Arab Journal of Dentistry
Published
2026-10-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.65314/2218-0885.1981
Primary Topic
Dental materials and restorations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Different Desensitising Methods on the Retention of Crowns Cemented with Resin Modified GIC:An In-Vitro Study

Kartika N Kumar, Naila Perween, Aditya Chaudhary, Punit Raj Singh Khurana et al.
International Arab Journal of Dentistry
Dental materials and restorations
article

Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Different Desensitising Methods on the Retention of Crowns Cemented with Resin Modified GIC:An In-Vitro Study

Kartika N Kumar, Naila Perween, Aditya Chaudhary, Punit Raj Singh Khurana, Zainab Inayatullah, Anju Aggarwal
article en

Abstract

Introductions: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the effect of three different desensitizing methods— Admira Protect, dentin bonding agent (Tetric N Bond), and diode laser—on the retention of porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) crowns cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). Methods: Forty extracted, non-carious human premolars were prepared for full-coverage crowns and divided into four groups (n = 10): Group I (Control, no desensitizer), Group II (Admira Protect), Group III (Dentin bonding agent), and Group IV (Diode laser). Standardized tooth preparations were performed and PFM crowns were fabricated and cemented using RMGIC (RelyX Luting 2, 3M ESPE). The crowns were subjected to tensile dislodgement forces using a universal testing machine, and peak dislodgement loads were recorded. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by post hoc comparisons. Results: Significant differences in crown retention were observed among the groups (p < 0.05). The control group exhibited the highest mean retention value (27.835 ± 0.790 kgf), followed by the diode laser group (25.607 ±1.054kgf), dentin bonding agent group (22.101 ± 0.871 kgf), and Admira Protect group (20.826 ± 0.862 kgf). Post hoc analysis revealed statistically significant differences between most groups, indicating that desensitizing agents can influence cement retention. Conclusions: Among the tested methods, diode laser treatment showed the least compromise in retention and can be considered a viable desensitizing option before cementation with RMGIC. Admira Protect significantly reduced retention values, possibly due to interference with the bonding mechanism of the cement. These findings highlight the importance of choosing appropriate desensitizing agents to balance sensitivity management and prosthesis retention.

International Arab Journal of DentistryVol. 17(4)
Noorul Islam College of Dental Science (IN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Dental materials and restorations
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Different Desensitising Methods on the Retention of Crowns Cemented with Resin Modified GIC:An In-Vitro Study — Kartika N Kumar, Naila Perween, et al. · International Arab Journal of Dentistry (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS