Agente Cementante

Hindawi Publishing Corporation
International Journal of Dentistry
Volume 2012, Article ID 752861, 7 pages
doi:10.1155/2012/752861

Review Article
A Review of Luting Agents
Cornelis H. Pameijer
Department of Reconstructive Sciences, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut, Farmington,
CT 06030, USA
Correspondence should be addressed to Cornelis H. Pameijer,cornelis@pameijer.com
Received 4 November 2011; Accepted 23 November 2011
Academic Editor: J. Anthony Von Fraunhofer
Copyright © 2012 Cornelis H. Pameijer. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
Due to the availability of a largenumber of luting agents (dental cements) proper selection can be a daunting task and is usually
based on a practitioner’s reliance on experience and preference and less on in depth knowledge of materials that are used for the
restoration and luting agent properties. This review aims at presenting an overview of current cements and discusses physical
properties, biocompatibility and other propertiesthat make a particular cement the preferred choice depending on the clinical
indication. Tables are provided that outline the different properties of the generic classification of cements. It should be noted that
no recommendations are made to use a particular commercial cement for a hypothetical clinical situation. The choice is solely
the responsibility of the practitioner. The appendix isintended as a guide for the practitioner towards a recommended choice
under commonly encountered clinical scenarios. Again, no commercial brands are recommended although the author recognizes
that some have better properties than others. Please note that this flowchart strictly presents the author’s opinion and is based on
research, clinical experience and the literature.

1. Introduction
Properselection of a luting agent is a last important decision
in a series of steps that require meticulous execution and will
determine the long-term success of fixed restorations. One
hundred years ago this decision was easy with the availability
of essentially only one luting agent, zinc phosphate cement.
Currently, a plethora of luting agents is available. Now the
choice of the optimal lutingagent can be confusing, even
for the most experienced clinician. Restorations of metal,
porcelain fused to metal, low-and high-strength ceramics,
full or partial coverage, require a prudent approach and the
proper cement selection should be based on knowledge of
physical properties, biological properties and other attributes
of both restorative materials and luting agents. This paper
aims atproviding an overview of currently available luting agents (cements) and discusses their advantages and
disadvantages. Emphasis has been placed on composition,
biocompatibility, physical properties, clinical indications,
and clinical performance. A wide range of formulations has

been developed over the last 40 years, but here emphasis has
been placed on the contemporary most frequentlyused ones,
whether used for luting or bonding.

2. Classification of Cements
Cements can be classified as follows:
(1) liners and bases;
(2) temporary (provisional) cements;
(3) permanent cements.
2.1. Liners and Bases. Preference seems to be given by
the dental profession to visible light curing materials, in
particular resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) cements
(sometimes also referred toas resin reinforced glass ionomer
(RRGI), when there is a need for a base or a liner. The reason
is based on simplicity and on the fast setting characteristics

2
of light curing materials as well as the possibility of subsequently etching them in order to establish strong adhesive
bonds with dentin bonding agents. Furthermore, they adhere
well to unetched hard tissue and exhibit...