Comparative evaluation of sorption and solubility of contemporary light-cured resin cement, resin-modified glass ionomer, and self-adhesive resin luting cement in distilled water and artificial saliva

Introduction
Luting cements play a pivotal role in the long-term success of indirect restorations by providing mechanical retention and sealing at the tooth-restoration interface. However, their performance is significantly influenced by their water sorption and solubility behavior, which can compromise restoration durability over time. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the sorption and solubility of a contemporary light-cured resin luting cement with those of resin-modified glass ionomer and self-adhesive resin luting cements, when immersed in distilled water and artificial saliva.

Material and methods
Sixty disc-shaped specimens were fabricated for three luting cements: Group 1 – resin-modified glass ionomer luting cement (3M™ RelyX™ Luting 2); Group 2 – self-adhesive resin luting cement (G-CEM ONE GC); Group 3 – light-cured resin luting cement (PANAVIA™ Veneer LC). Specimens were stored in either distilled water or artificial saliva at 37°C for 30 days. Sorption and solubility (μg/mm3) were measured according to ISO 4049:2009 standards. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc LSD tests (p < 0.05).

Results
Significant differences in sorption and solubility were observed among the cements (p < 0.05). Although artificial saliva showed numerically higher sorption and solubility values than distilled water across all groups, these differences were not statistically significant. PANAVIA™ Veneer LC exhibited the lowest sorption and solubility values, followed by G-CEM ONE GC, while 3M™ RelyX™ Luting 2 showed the highest values.

Conclusions
The sorption and solubility of luting cements are significantly influenced by their composition and the nature of storage medium. Contemporary light-cured resin cement (PANAVIA™ Veneer LC) demonstrated superior resistance to water uptake and dissolution, suggesting better clinical durability. Although artificial saliva resulted in numerically higher sorption and solubility values than distilled water across all groups, these diffe­rences were not statistically significant.