Literature DB >> 19040447

Retrievability of implant-retained crowns following cementation.

Christian Mehl1, Sönke Harder, Mona Wolfart, Matthias Kern, Stefan Wolfart.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the retrievability of cemented implant crowns using two different removal devices. The influence of five cement types and two cement application techniques was evaluated.
METHODS: Forty copings were cast from a CoCr alloy for 40 tapered titanium abutments (5 degrees taper, 4.3 mm diameter, 6 mm height, Camlog, Germany). Twenty copings were modeled as single crowns, whereas 20 copings were modeled with an extension to simulate fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Before cementation, the inner surfaces of the copings were air-abraded (50 mum Al(2)O(3) particles at 2.5 bars), while the abutments were used as delivered with machined surfaces. Copings were cemented with eugenol-free zinc oxide (Freegenol), zinc phosphate (Harvard), glass ionomer (Ketac Cem), polycarboxylate (Durelon) and so-called self-adhesive resin (RelyX Unicem) cement. Cement was applied in a thin film band of 1 or 3 mm to the cervical margin of the inner surface of the copings, respectively. After cementation, specimens were stored in saline solution for 24 h. The Coronaflex and a standardized custom-made removal device were used to remove the copings from the abutments.
RESULTS: Using the same cement, no statistically significant influence with regard to the type of restoration (crown/FDP), cement application mode and device was detected (P>0.05). Therefore, data of specimens cemented with the same cement were pooled. Median attempts to remove the copings were: zinc oxide: 3, self-adhesive resin: 3, zinc phosphate: 5, glass ionomer: 16 and polycarboxylate: 58. Four levels of significance (P<0.0001) were found: (1) zinc oxide/self-adhesive resin; (2) zinc phosphate; (3) glass ionomer; and (4) polycarboxylate.
CONCLUSIONS: Zinc phosphate and glass ionomer cement might be suitable for a so-called 'semipermanent' (=retrievable) cementation, while polycarboxylate seems to provide the most durable cementation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19040447     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01587.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  18 in total

1.  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

2.  Effect of cement washout on loosening of abutment screws and vice versa in screw- and cement- retained implant-supported dental prosthesis.

Authors:  Seok-Gyu Kim; Chae-Heon Chung; Mee-Kyoung Son
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 1.904

Review 3.  Cement selection criteria for full coverage restorations: A comprehensive review of literature.

Authors:  Safoura Ghodsi; Sarah Arzani; Mina Shekarian; MohammadMostafa Aghamohseni
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2021-11-01

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.  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

6.  Effect of Surface Modifications on the Retention of Cement-retained Implant Crowns under Fatigue Loads: An In vitro Study.

Authors:  R Ajay; K Suma; Seyed Asharaf Ali; Jambai Sampath Kumar Sivakumar; V Rakshagan; V Devaki; K Divya
Journal:  J Pharm Bioallied Sci       Date:  2017-11

7.  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

8.  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

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.