Literature DB >> 19126111

Marginal fit of cemented and screw-retained crowns incorporated on the Straumann (ITI) Dental Implant System: an in vitro study.

N A Tosches1, U Brägger, N P Lang.   

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the marginal fit of crowns on the Straumann (ITI) Dental Implant System with special consideration of different casting dental materials.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns were fabricated: 18 crowns on standard cone abutments with an impression cylinder, partially prefabricated analogs, no coping and screw-retained (A); 18 crowns on solid abutments without an impression device, no analogs, no coping and cemented (B); and 18 crowns on solid abutments using an impression transfer cap, an analog with a shoulder, no coping and cemented (C). In each group, six crowns were made on epoxy mastercasts (Bluestar), six on synthetic plaster (Moldasynt) and six on super hard stone (Fujirock). Six additional crowns were fabricated with the transversal screw retention system onto the Octa system with impression transfer caps, metal analogs, gold copings and screw-retained (D). Impregum was used as impression material. Crowns of B and C were cemented with KetacCem. Crowns of A and D were fixed with an occlusal screw torqued at 15 N cm. Crowns were embedded, cut and polished. Under a light microscope using a magnification of x 100, the distance between the crown margin (CM) and the shoulder (marginal gap, MG) and the distance between the CM and the end of the shoulder (crown length, CL) was measured.
RESULTS: MGs were 15.4+/-13.2 microm (A), 21.2+/-23.1 microm (B), 11+/-12.1 microm (C) and 10.4+/-9.3 microm (D). No statistically significantly differences using either of the casting materials were observed. CLs were -21.3+/-24.8 microm (A), 3+/-28.9 microm (B), 0.5+/-22 microm (C) and 0.1+/-15.8 microm (D). Crowns were shorter on synthetic casting materials compared with stone casts (P<0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: CMs fit precisely with both cemented and screw-retained versions as well as when using no, partial or full analogs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19126111     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01591.x

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


  3 in total

1.  Clinician- and patient-reported long-term evaluation of screw- and cement-retained implant restorations: a 5-year prospective study.

Authors:  Sami Sherif; Srinivas M Susarla; Jae-Woong Hwang; Hans-Peter Weber; Robert F Wright
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Survey of Screw-Retained versus Cement-Retained Implant Restorations in Saudi Arabia.

Authors:  Alaa Makke; Abdulwahed Homsi; Montaha Guzaiz; Abdulrahman Almalki
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2017-10-30

3.  In vitro validation of Digital Image Analysis Sequence (DIAS) for the assessment of the marginal fit of cement-retained implant-supported experimental crowns.

Authors:  Aristeidis A Villias; Stefanos G Kourtis; Hercules C Karkazis; Gregory L Polyzois
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2021-02-15
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.