Literature DB >> 22847855

Factors determining the retentiveness of luting agents used with metal- and ceramic-based implant components.

Cornelia Schiessl1, Lina Schaefer, Christian Winter, Jan Fuerst, Martin Rosentritt, Florian Zeman, Michael Behr.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the factors that determine the retentiveness of copings made of cobalt-chromium (CoCr)-alloy or zirconia luted with permanent (solid-body like) and provisional (viscous, elastic-body-like) luting agents.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We manufactured titanium implant analogs with four-, six-, and eight-taper degrees and copings of CoCr-alloy and zirconia and luted the copings according to a standardized protocol. Samples were thermally cycled, and we investigated the various degrees of roughness of the copings' inner surfaces as well as the various cement mixing ratios on the retentiveness. Copings were either pulled out slowly (by means of a universal testing machine) or knocked out quickly (using a CORONAflex crown replacement device).
RESULTS: The highest level of retentiveness was achieved with a four-taper degree for polycarboxylates followed by zinc-oxide-phosphates and glass ionomers or composite cements. Provisional cements and composite cements containing a plastifier showed significantly lower retentiveness levels. The pull-out and knock-out tests showed a relationship between retentiveness level and taper degree. However, the influence of taper degree was reduced with higher taper degrees as well as with cements that do not set as a solid body due to ingredients such as oily liquids or plastifiers. Thermal cycling further reduced the retentiveness level of these cements. Higher degrees of roughness only improved the retention force of cements setting as a solid body. Mixing errors may alter retentiveness levels in an unpredictable manner. When used within the same group of cements, metal-alloy, and zirconia copings did not differ with regard to their level of retentiveness.
CONCLUSION: Copings made of metal-alloy and zirconia showed no different level of retentiveness when set onto titanium abutments fixed with permanent or provisional cements. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Only cements setting as a solid body showed a clear relationship between retentiveness level and taper degree. In contrast, the retentiveness of provisional (viscous, elastic-body-like) luting agents was less predictable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22847855     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0798-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  23 in total

Review 1.  Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants.

Authors:  C J Goodacre; J Y Kan; K Rungcharassaeng
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 3.426

2.  The retention of complete crowns prepared with three different tapers and luted with four different cements.

Authors:  Omar Zidan; Gary C Ferguson
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 3.426

3.  Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements.

Authors:  Ahmed Mansour; Carlo Ercoli; Gerald Graser; Ross Tallents; Mark Moss
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.977

4.  The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns.

Authors:  Yongsik Kim; Junro Yamashita; Jeffrey L Shotwell; Kok-Heng Chong; Hom-Lay Wang
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.426

5.  The effect of fatigue damage on the force required to remove a restoration in a cement-retained implant system.

Authors:  Darian Kaar; Yoshiki Oshida; Carl J Andres; M Thomas Barco; Jeffrey A Platt
Journal:  J Prosthodont       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.752

6.  Retention of cast crown copings cemented to implant abutments.

Authors:  J E Dudley; L C Richards; J R Abbott
Journal:  Aust Dent J       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 2.291

7.  Screw- versus cement-retained implant restorations: current concepts.

Authors:  Angie Lee; Kozue Okayasu; Hom-Lay Wang
Journal:  Implant Dent       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.454

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

Authors:  Yu-Hwa Pan; Lance C Ramp; Ching-Kai Lin; Perng-Ru Liu
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.804

9.  Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components.

Authors:  R S Squier; J R Agar; J P Duncan; T D Taylor
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.804

Review 10.  Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry.

Authors:  K S Hebel; R C Gajjar
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.426

View more
  7 in total

1.  Influence of abutment design on retention of metal copings cemented to implants.

Authors:  Albano Porto da Cunha; Glauco Pereira Moysés; Ana Christina Claro Neves; Rafael Pino Vitti; Flávia Cardoso da Rosa Goulart; Laís Regiane da Siva-Concílio
Journal:  Acta Biomater Odontol Scand       Date:  2016-01-26

2.  Digital versus conventional techniques for pattern fabrication of implant-supported frameworks.

Authors:  Marzieh Alikhasi; Ahmad Rohanian; Safoura Ghodsi; Amin Mohammadpour Kolde
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2018 Jan-Mar

Review 3.  A Systematic Review of Cementation Techniques to Minimize Cement Excess in Cement-Retained Implant Restorations.

Authors:  Rodolfo Reda; Alessio Zanza; Andrea Cicconetti; Shilpa Bhandi; Renzo Guarnieri; Luca Testarelli; Dario Di Nardo
Journal:  Methods Protoc       Date:  2022-01-17

4.  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

5.  Evaluation of removal forces of implant-supported zirconia copings depending on abutment geometry, luting agent and cleaning method during re-cementation.

Authors:  Matthias Rödiger; Sven Rinke; Fenja Ehret-Kleinau; Franziska Pohlmeyer; Katharina Lange; Ralf Bürgers; Nikolaus Gersdorff
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 1.904

6.  Comparative evaluation of bonding strength of computer aided machined ceramic, pressable ceramic, and milled metal implant abutment copings and effect of surface conditioning on bonding strength: An in vitro study.

Authors:  Sapna Rani; Mahesh Verma; Shubhra Gill; Rekha Gupta
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2016 Apr-Jun

7.  In Vitro Impact Testing to Simulate Implant-Supported Prosthesis Retrievability in Clinical Practice: Influence of Cement and Abutment Geometry.

Authors:  Andrea T Lugas; Mara Terzini; Elisabetta M Zanetti; Gianmario Schierano; Carlo Manzella; Domenico Baldi; Cristina Bignardi; Alberto L Audenino
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2020-04-09       Impact factor: 3.623

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.