title: The effect of retentive groove, sandblasting and cement type on the retentive strength of stainless steel crowns in primary second molars--an in vitro comparative study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This in vitro study was conducted to find out the effect of retentive groove, sand blasting and cement type on the retentive strength of stainless steel crowns in primary second molars.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty-two extracted intact human maxillary and mandibular primary second molars were embedded in aluminum blocks utilizing autopolymerising acrylic resin. After tooth preparation, the 3M stainless steel crown was adjusted to the prepared tooth. Then weldable buccal tubes were welded on the buccal and lingual surfaces of each crown as an attachment for the testing machine. A full factorial design matrix for four factors (retentive groove placement on the tooth, cement type, sandblasting and primary second molar) at two levels each was developed and the study was conducted as dictated by the matrix. The lower and upper limits for each factor were without and with retentive groove placement on the tooth, GIC and RMGIC, without and with sandblasting of crown, maxillary and mandibular second primary molar. For those teeth for which the design matrix dictated groove placement, the retentive groove was placed on the middle third of the buccal surface of the tooth horizontally and for those crowns for which sandblasting of the crowns are to be done, sandblasting was done with aluminium oxide with a particle size of 250 mm. The crowns were luted with either GIC or RMGIC, as dictated by the design matrix. Then the retentive strength of each sample was evaluated by means of an universal testing machine. The obtained data was analyzed using ANOVA for statistical analysis of the data and 't'- tests for pairwise comparison.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The mean retentive strength in kg/cm 2 stainless steel crowns luted with RMGIC was 19.361 and the mean retentive strength of stainless steel crowns luted with GIC was 15.964 kg/cm 2 with a mean difference of 3.397 kg/cm 2 and was statistically significant. The mean retentive strength in kg/cm 2 of stainless steel crowns, which was not sandblasted, was 18.880 and which was sandblasted was 16.445 kg/cm 2 with a mean difference of 2.436 kg/cm 2 . These results were again statistically significant.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  It was found that the crowns luted with resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIC's) offered better retentive strength of crowns than glass ionomer cements (GIC) and stainless steel crowns which were cemented without sandblasting showed higher mean retentive strength than with sandblasting of crowns. The presence of groove did not influence the retentive strength of stainless steel crowns.
authors.affiliation: Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Vivekananadha Dental College and Hospital for Women, Trichengode, India.
authors.forename: M M
authors.initials: MM
authors.lastname: Veerabadhran
authors.forename: V
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Reddy
authors.forename: U A
authors.initials: UA
authors.lastname: Nayak
authors.forename: A P
authors.initials: AP
authors.lastname: Rao
authors.forename: M A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Sundaram
mesh_terms: D002484:Cementation / Q000379:methods; D003442:Crowns; D003722:Dental Alloys / Q000737:chemistry*; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003738:Dental Cements / Q000737:chemistry*; D045662:Dental Etching / Q000379:methods*; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D017268:Dental Prosthesis Retention; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D008963:Molar / Q000473:pathology*; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D013193:Stainless Steel / Q000737:chemistry*; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties; D019231:Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic / Q000379:methods; D014094:Tooth, Deciduous / Q000473:pathology*
chemical_list: D003722:Dental Alloys; D003738:Dental Cements; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D019279:Resin Cements; D013193:Stainless Steel