Literature DB >> 19133949

Retention of cast crown copings cemented to implant abutments.

J E Dudley1, L C Richards, J R Abbott.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The cementation of crowns to dental implant abutments is an accepted form of crown retention that requires consideration of the properties of available cements within the applied clinical context. Dental luting agents are exposed to a number of stressors that may reduce crown retention in vivo, not the least of which is occlusal loading. This study investigated the influence of compressive cyclic loading on the physical retention of cast crown copings cemented to implant abutments.
METHODS: Cast crown copings were cemented to Straumann synOcta titanium implant abutments with three different readily used and available cements. Specimens were placed in a humidifier, thermocycled and subjected to one of four quantities of compressive cyclic loading. The uniaxial tensile force required to remove the cast crown copings was then recorded.
RESULTS: The mean retention values for crown copings cemented with Panavia-F cement were statistically significantly greater than both KetacCem and TempBond non-eugenol cements at each compressive cyclic loading quantity. KetacCem and TempBond non-eugenol cements produced relatively low mean retention values that were not statistically significantly different at each quantity of compressive cyclic loading. Compressive cyclic loading had a statistically significant effect on Panavia-F specimens alone, but increased loading quantities produced no further statistically significant difference in mean retention.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the current in vitro conditions employed in this study, the retention of cast crown copings cemented to Straumann synOcta implant abutments with a resin, glass ionomer and temporary cement was significantly affected by cement type but not compressive cyclic loading. Resin cement is the cement of choice for the definitive non-retrievable cementation of cast crown copings to Straumann synOcta implant abutments out of the three cements tested.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19133949     DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00075.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust Dent J        ISSN: 0045-0421            Impact factor:   2.291


  12 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.  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

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  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

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Load-Bearing Capacity and Retention of Newly Developed Micro-Locking Implant Prosthetic System: An In Vitro Pilot Study.

Authors:  Jae-Won Choi; Kyung-Hee Choi; Hee-Jin Chae; Sung-Ki Chae; Eun-Bin Bae; Jin-Ju Lee; So-Hyoun Lee; Chang-Mo Jeong; Jung-Bo Huh
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2018-04-06       Impact factor: 3.623

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.