Literature DB >> 17302949

Retention and leakage of implant-supported restorations luted with provisional cement: a pilot study.

Y-H Pan1, L C Ramp, C-K Lin, P-R Liu.   

Abstract

Few data exist regarding cement failure load and marginal leakage of castings cemented to implant-supported abutments subjected to load and thermal cycling, especially with newer cements. This study evaluated the cement failure load and marginal leakage of castings cemented to Steri-Oss abutment/analog assemblies with one of seven luting protocols (n = 5). Protocols consisted of a zinc phosphate control, zinc phosphate with petroleum jelly, TempBond, TempBond NE, ImProv, ImProv with petroleum jelly and Provilink. Cemented castings were subjected to cyclic axial compression of 75 N for 100,000 cycles, 1000 thermal cycles (5-55 degrees C), and immersed 24 h in 0.5% basic fuchsin. The castings were then loaded in tension until cement failure. Cement failure load was analysed using anova and Fischer's PLSD (alpha = 0.05). Marginal leakage on the intaglio of the casting was scored with the unaided eye on a scale of 0-2, and analysed with Duncan's multiple range (alpha = 0.05). Similar groups are noted by superscript. Cement failure load (from lowest to highest): ImProv with petroleum jelly(a), TempBond(a), ImProv(a), Tempbond NE(a), Provilink(a), zinc phosphate with petroleum jelly(b), zinc phosphate(c) (P < 0.0001). Marginal leakage scores (from lowest to highest): ImProv(a), Provilink(a), ImProv with petroleum jelly(a), zinc phosphate(ab), zinc phosphate with petroleum jelly(ab), TempBond(bc), and TempBond NE(c) (P = 0.01). Addition of petroleum jelly to zinc phosphate lowered cement failure load without affecting marginal leakage. ImProv and Provilink demonstrated relatively low cement failure load, as well as lowest marginal leakage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17302949     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01673.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Oral Rehabil        ISSN: 0305-182X            Impact factor:   3.837


  6 in total

1.  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

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.  Vertical misfit of laser-sintered and vacuum-cast implant-supported crown copings luted with definitive and temporary luting agents.

Authors:  Raquel Castillo-de-Oyagüe; Andrés Sánchez-Turrión; José-Francisco López-Lozano; Alberto Albaladejo; Daniel Torres-Lagares; Javier Montero; Maria-Jesús Suárez-García
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2012-07-01

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.