Literature DB >> 10960988

Cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures.

K X Michalakis1, A L Pissiotis, H Hirayama.   

Abstract

The major disadvantage of cement-retained implant-supported fixed partial dentures (FPDs) is difficulty in retrievability. The retentive strengths of the provisional luting agents usually employed in these cases are therefore an important consideration. This study evaluated the cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of FPDs supported by 2 implants or 4 implants. Nogenol luting agent exhibited the lowest retentive values in both types of FPD. ImProv proved to be the most retentive cement of all tested. Temp Bond NE and Temp Bond presented significantly different values (P < .05) for the 2-implant FPD, but not for the 4-implant model. On the basis of the study results, it may be concluded that Nogenol appears to be more appropriate for cementation of both 2- and 4-implant-supported FPDs when removal of the provisionally cemented superstructure is anticipated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10960988

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants        ISSN: 0882-2786            Impact factor:   2.804


  11 in total

1.  Replacement of missing anterior tooth using screw retained implant prosthesis in the esthetic zone: a case report with 3 years of follow up.

Authors:  Manawar Ahmad; B Dhanasekar; I N Aparna; Hina Naim
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2012-10-19

2.  Comparison of the effect of implant abutment surface modifications on retention of implant-supported restoration with a polymer based cement.

Authors:  Nabaprakash Sahu; Namratha Lakshmi; N S Azhagarasan; Yoshaskam Agnihotri; Manoj Rajan; Ramasubramanian Hariharan
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2014-01-12

3.  The selection criteria of temporary or permanent luting agents in implant-supported prostheses: in vitro study.

Authors:  Angel Alvarez-Arenal; Ignacio Gonzalez-Gonzalez; Hector deLlanos-Lanchares; Aritza Brizuela-Velasco; Joseba Ellacuria-Echebarria
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 1.904

4.  Effect of abutment modification and cement type on retention of cement-retained implant supported crowns.

Authors:  Mitra Farzin; Kianoosh Torabi; Ahmad Hasan Ahangari; Reza Derafshi
Journal:  J Dent (Tehran)       Date:  2014-05-31

5.  Angulated Implants for Fabrication of Implant Supported Fixed Partial Denture in the Maxilla.

Authors:  Nicholas Egbert; Swati Ahuja; Audrey Selecman; Russell Wicks
Journal:  J Dent (Shiraz)       Date:  2017-12

6.  Modified Glass Ionomer Cement with "Remove on Demand" Properties: An In Vitro Study.

Authors:  Shaza Bishti; Taskin Tuna; Garima Agrawal; Andrij Pich; Stefan Wolfart
Journal:  Dent J (Basel)       Date:  2017-01-23

7.  Comparative evaluation of microleakage of metallic copings luted with three different commercially available luting cements: An in vitro study.

Authors:  Mohit Handa; Pratibha Marya; Varun Gupta; Sumit Chopra
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2021 Jan-Mar

8.  A comparison of retentive strength of implant cement depending on various methods of removing provisional cement from implant abutment.

Authors:  Eun-Cheol Keum; Soo-Yeon Shin
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2013-08-31       Impact factor: 1.904

9.  Retention Strength after Compressive Cyclic Loading of Five Luting Agents Used in Implant-Supported Prostheses.

Authors:  Angel Alvarez-Arenal; Ignacio Gonzalez-Gonzalez; Hector deLlanos-Lanchares; Aritza Brizuela-Velasco; Javier Pinés-Hueso; Joseba Ellakuria-Echebarria
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-10-16       Impact factor: 3.411

10.  The effects of provisional resin cements on the color and retentive strength of all-ceramic restorations cemented on customized zirconia abutments.

Authors:  Seyede Mina Salehi Dehno; Rashin Giti; Mohammad Hassan Kalantari; Farhad Mohammadi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-01-18       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.