Literature DB >> 12964683

The effects of abutment taper, length and cement type on resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations.

Guillermo Bernal1, Mitsunobu Okamura, Carlos A Muñoz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of 20 degrees and 30 degrees of total occlusal convergence (TOC), the occlusocervical dimension, and the type of cement on the tensile resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cylindrical preparations with TOC angles of 20 degrees and 30 degrees and occlusocervical dimensions of 4 mm (S) and 8 mm (L) were made through a machining process. The cylinders had a shoulder finish line of 1.0 mm in depth. Eight impressions were made of each machined cylinder and poured in type IV dental stone, for a total of 32 dies. Die spacer was applied to each die. A master wax pattern was designed, and the 32 wax patterns were marginated, invested, and cast in type IV gold alloy (n = 8). The gold crowns were cemented with Fleck's cement (zinc phosphate cement), Temp-Bond (zinc oxide eugenol cement), Temp-Bond plus Vaseline (30% by weight), and IMProv temporary cement (acrylic/urethane cement) under a 10-kg load and placed in a humidor at 37 degrees C for 1 hour before testing. A uniaxial tensile force was applied to the crown using an Instron machine with a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min until cement failure occurred. Analysis of variance models were fit to determine the effect of TOC, occlusocervical dimension, and cement type of the restorations on the mean tensile strength.
RESULTS: For each type of cement, the mean tensile strengths were significantly higher at 20 degrees of TOC and 8 mm of occlusocervical dimension compared with the other preparations. At this preparation, IMProv had the highest mean tensile resistance to dislodgement (47.7 +/- 8.4 kg), followed by Fleck's (38.2 +/- 8.8 kg), Temp-Bond (35.9 +/- 4.4 kg), and Temp-Bond plus Vaseline (8.2 +/- 2.2 kg). No statistically significant difference was observed between Temp-Bond and Fleck's zinc phosphate cement when 20 degrees of TOC and 8 mm of occlusocervical dimension was used. There was no statistical difference in the mean tensile resistance to dislodgement for Temp-Bond plus Vaseline with different preparation designs (p > 0.05) except when 20 degrees of TOC and 8 mm of occlusocervical dimension was used. The mean tensile strength was significantly different between Temp-Bond and Temp-Bond plus Vaseline for each of the 4 preparation designs (p < 0.05). Among the cements tested, IMProv exhibited higher values, which were statistically different (p < 0.05). Restorations with greater occlusocervical dimension and less TOC exhibited higher tensile resistance to dislodgement.
CONCLUSIONS: Preparations with 20 degrees of TOC and 8 mm of occlusocervical dimension had significantly higher mean retentive values for all of the cements tested. Significant differences in mean tensile strength were observed, with the highest tensile resistance seen with IMProv, followed by Fleck's cement, and the lowest tensile resistance seen with Temp-Bond plus Vaseline.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12964683     DOI: 10.1016/S1059-941X(03)00006-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Prosthodont        ISSN: 1059-941X            Impact factor:   2.752


  22 in total

1.  Effect of various surface treatments on the retention properties of titanium to implant restorative cement.

Authors:  Hakan Akin; Umit Guney
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2011-11-29       Impact factor: 3.161

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.  Retention of Implant Supported Metal Crowns Cemented with Different Luting Agents: A Comparative Invitro Study.

Authors:  Roohi Kapoor; Kavipal Singh; Simrat Kaur; Aman Arora
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-04-01

4.  Factors determining the retentiveness of luting agents used with metal- and ceramic-based implant components.

Authors:  Cornelia Schiessl; Lina Schaefer; Christian Winter; Jan Fuerst; Martin Rosentritt; Florian Zeman; Michael Behr
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-07-31       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  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

6.  Effect of Abutment Height on Retention of Single Cement-retained, Wide- and Narrow-platform Implant-supported Restorations.

Authors:  Fariba Saleh Saber; Nader Abolfazli; Sara Nuroloyuni; Sohleh Khodabakhsh; Mehran Bahrami; Reza Nahidi; Somaieh Zeighami
Journal:  J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects       Date:  2012-09-01

7.  Retentiveness of implant-supported metal copings using different luting agents.

Authors:  Farahnaz Nejatidanesh; Omid Savabi; Maziar Ebrahimi; Ghazal Savabi
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2012-01

8.  Rationale for the use of CAD/CAM technology in implant prosthodontics.

Authors:  Jaafar Abduo; Karl Lyons
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2013-04-16

9.  Comparative study on stress distribution around internal tapered connection implants according to fit of cement- and screw-retained prostheses.

Authors:  Mi-Young Lee; Seong-Joo Heo; Eun-Jin Park; Ji-Man Park
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2013-08-31       Impact factor: 1.904

10.  Evaluation of removal forces of implant-supported zirconia copings depending on abutment geometry, luting agent and cleaning method during re-cementation.

Authors:  Matthias Rödiger; Sven Rinke; Fenja Ehret-Kleinau; Franziska Pohlmeyer; Katharina Lange; Ralf Bürgers; Nikolaus Gersdorff
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 1.904

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.