Literature DB >> 16955610

Comparison of 7 luting protocols and their effect on the retention and marginal leakage of a cement-retained dental implant restoration.

Yu-Hwa Pan1, Lance C Ramp, Ching-Kai Lin, Perng-Ru Liu.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the cement bond strength and marginal leakage of castings cemented to implant abutments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-six titanium abutments and castings were divided into 7 groups (n=8), 1 for each cement. Castings were cemented to abutments using 1 of 3 resin-based cements (RES, RES-B, and RES-B-P), a resin-modified glass ionomer (GI), a polycarboxylate cement (PCB), an acrylic urethane cement (UDM), or a zinc phosphate cement (ZP). Specimens were placed in 100% humidity at 37 degrees C for 24 hours. Specimens were subjected to compressive load cycling followed by thermal cycling; they were then immersed for 24 hours in 0.5% basic fuchsin. Castings were removed with an Instron universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.125 cm/min. Leakage was visually graded from 0 (no leakage) to 2 (leakage extended beyond the lower half of the internal surface of the casting). Failure load (FL) was analyzed with analysis of variance and Scheffe's test (alpha = .05). Chi-square was used to analyze leakage (alpha = .05).
RESULTS: Cements were categorized by FL into 4 statistically unique groups: (1) RES-B-P (351 N) and GI (337 N); (2) ZP (245 N) and RES-B (241 N); (3) PCB (107 N); and (4) RES (63 N) and UDM (55 N). Leakage was greater for the PCB group than for the other groups (7 of 8 specimens demonstrated leakage; P < .01). Three ZP specimens demonstrated leakage. UDM and RES each had 1 specimen with leakage. RES-B-P, RES-B, and GI showed no leakage.
CONCLUSIONS: Luting agents designated by the manufacturer as provisional cements demonstrated lower resistance to removal, regardless of material type. Luting agents described by manufacturers as "permanent" differed in resistance, with resin cements being most resistant, followed by zinc phosphate and polycarboxylate cements. Provisional cements demonstrated leakage comparable to higher-strength materials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16955610

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


  14 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  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

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.  Effects of abutment diameter, luting agent type, and re-cementation on the retention of implant-supported CAD/CAM metal copings over short abutments.

Authors:  Sina Safari; Fereshteh Hosseini Ghavam; Parviz Amini; Kaveh Yaghmaei
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 1.904

6.  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

7.  Retention of different temporary cements tested on zirconia crowns and titanium abutments in vitro.

Authors:  Felix Dähne; Heike Meißner; Klaus Böning; Christin Arnold; Ralf Gutwald; Elisabeth Prause
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2021-07-20

8.  Effects of crown retrieval on implants and the surrounding bone: a finite element analysis.

Authors:  Serhat Emre Ozkir; Server Mutluay Unal; Emel Yurekli; Sedat Güven
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2016-04-21       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.  Influence of Luting Materials on the Retention of Cemented Implant-Supported Crowns: An In Vitro Study.

Authors:  Ella A Naumova; Felix Roth; Berit Geis; Christine Baulig; Wolfgang H Arnold; Andree Piwowarczyk
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 3.623

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.