OBJECTIVE: The titanium-cement interface of a Ti-Base implant crown must be able to resist intraoral pull-off forces. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of mechanical and chemical surface treatments of a titanium-abutment base (Ti-Base, Dentsply/Sirona) on the pull-off bond strength of a lithium disilicate abutment coping. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ti-Bases were divided into nine groups of 10 copings each that varied in both mechanical surface treatment (none; Al2O3 air abrasion; CoJet silicoating, 3M ESPE) and chemical treatments (none; Monobond Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent; Alloy Primer, Kuraray). Lithium disilicate abutment copings (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent) were designed and milled. After crystallization, the copings were cemented onto the Ti-Bases with a resin cement (MultiLink Hybrid-Abutment Cement, Ivoclar Vivadent) according to the manufacturer's recommendations. The copings were torqued to a mounted implant, and the access channel was sealed with composite. After 24-hour storage and 2000 thermal-cycles in distilled water, the copings were subjected to a removal force parallel to the long axis of the interface until fracture. Data were analyzed with multiple one-way analyses of variance and Tukey post hoc tests (α=0.05). RESULTS: Significant differences were found between groups based on type of surface treatment (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Chemical surface treatment with Monobond Plus and mechanical surface treatment with CoJet silicoating or Al2O3 air abrasion resulted in the greatest pull-off bond strength. Alloy Primer did not provide a statistically significant increased pull-off bond strength when the surfaces were mechanically treated with Al2O3 air abrasion or CoJet silicoating. The lack of any mechanical surface treatment resulted in the lowest pull-off bond strength regardless of the type of chemical surface treatment.
OBJECTIVE: The titanium-cement interface of a Ti-Base implant crown must be able to resist intraoral pull-off forces. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of mechanical and chemical surface treatments of a titanium-abutment base (Ti-Base, Dentsply/Sirona) on the pull-off bond strength of a lithium disilicate abutment coping. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Ti-Bases were divided into nine groups of 10 copings each that varied in both mechanical surface treatment (none; Al2O3 air abrasion; CoJet silicoating, 3M ESPE) and chemical treatments (none; Monobond Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent; Alloy Primer, Kuraray). Lithium disilicate abutment copings (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent) were designed and milled. After crystallization, the copings were cemented onto the Ti-Bases with a resin cement (MultiLink Hybrid-Abutment Cement, Ivoclar Vivadent) according to the manufacturer's recommendations. The copings were torqued to a mounted implant, and the access channel was sealed with composite. After 24-hour storage and 2000 thermal-cycles in distilled water, the copings were subjected to a removal force parallel to the long axis of the interface until fracture. Data were analyzed with multiple one-way analyses of variance and Tukey post hoc tests (α=0.05). RESULTS: Significant differences were found between groups based on type of surface treatment (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Chemical surface treatment with Monobond Plus and mechanical surface treatment with CoJet silicoating or Al2O3 air abrasion resulted in the greatest pull-off bond strength. Alloy Primer did not provide a statistically significant increased pull-off bond strength when the surfaces were mechanically treated with Al2O3 air abrasion or CoJet silicoating. The lack of any mechanical surface treatment resulted in the lowest pull-off bond strength regardless of the type of chemical surface treatment.
Authors: Frank A Spitznagel; Estevam A Bonfante; Tiago M B Campos; Maximilian A Vollmer; Johannes Boldt; Sam Doerken; Petra C Gierthmuehlen Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 3.623