S Varalakshmi Reddy1, M Sushender Reddy2, C Rajaneesh Reddy3, Padmaja Pithani4, Santosh Kumar R5, Ganesh Kulkarni6. 1. Professor & HOD, Department of Prosthodontics, MNR Dental College & Hospital , Sangareddy, Telangana, India . 2. Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, SVS Institute of Dental Sciences , Mahabubnagar, Telangana, India . 3. Reader, Department of Oral Surgery, KLR Lenora College of Dental Sciences , Rajanagaram, Rajamundry, Andhra Pradesh, India . 4. Reader, Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Balaji Dental College , Moinabad,R.R Dist, Telangana, India . 5. Reader, Department of Prosthodontics, AME'S Dental College , Raichur, Karnataka, India . 6. Senior Lecturer, Department of Oral Pathology, Malla Reddy Institute of Dental Sciences , Suraram, Hyderabad, Telangana, India .
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To provide relative data on the retentive characters of the commonly used cements on different implant abutment surfaces. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 implant abutments were divided into 2 groups. Ten implants were unaltered and ten were air borne particle abraded with 50μ aluminium oxide. Three luting agents (Tempbond, IRM and ImProv) were used to secure the crowns to abutments. All the crowns were removed from the abutment with an Instron machine at 0.5mm per minute and tensile bond strengths were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using Anova, Paired t-test and Post-Hoc tests. RESULTS: IRM showed the highest mean tensile strength among the three cements when used with treated and untreated implant abutment surfaces. Change in the abutment surface roughness had no effect on the mean tensile bond strength of TempBond and IRM cements, whereas ImProv cement showed reduced tensile strength with sandblasted surface. CONCLUSION: When increased retention is required IRM cement with either sandblasted or milled surface could be used and when retrievability is required cements of choice could be either TempBond or ImProv.
OBJECTIVES: To provide relative data on the retentive characters of the commonly used cements on different implant abutment surfaces. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 20 implant abutments were divided into 2 groups. Ten implants were unaltered and ten were air borne particle abraded with 50μ aluminium oxide. Three luting agents (Tempbond, IRM and ImProv) were used to secure the crowns to abutments. All the crowns were removed from the abutment with an Instron machine at 0.5mm per minute and tensile bond strengths were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using Anova, Paired t-test and Post-Hoc tests. RESULTS:IRM showed the highest mean tensile strength among the three cements when used with treated and untreated implant abutment surfaces. Change in the abutment surface roughness had no effect on the mean tensile bond strength of TempBond and IRM cements, whereas ImProv cement showed reduced tensile strength with sandblasted surface. CONCLUSION: When increased retention is required IRM cement with either sandblasted or milled surface could be used and when retrievability is required cements of choice could be either TempBond or ImProv.
Authors: Aasia Ahsan; B Khushboo; Ashish Kumar; Sweta Kumari; Bharathi Poojary; Arti Dixit; Amit Kumar; Bhumika Kamal Badiyani Journal: J Pharm Bioallied Sci Date: 2022-07-13