Analysis of the effects of implant cements between different abutments and CAD/CAM materials on connection strength

Year 2022, Volume: 32 Issue: 4 - 2022, 32:4, 277 - 283, 21.10.2022

Neslihan Yenice Ayşe Koçak Büyükdere

https://doi.org/10.54614/CRDS.2022.6233

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of cementation of zirconium and titanium abutments and different CAD/CAM materials with 2 different implant cements on shear bond strength.

Material and Method: For this study, a total of 120 rectangular prism specimens of monolithic zirconia and titanium blocks have been prepared. 40 specimens have been prepared from 3 different CAD/CAM blocks. 9% hydrofluoric acid was applied to zirconia supported lithium disilicate. Resin nano ceramic and zirconium oxide ceramic stabilized with yttrium were sandblasted with Al2O3 particles. CAD/CAM specimens produced were cemented on abutments using permanent and temporary implant cement. Upon the cementation, the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 hours and after when a microshear test was applied at a speed of 0.5 mm/min in a universal test device. The values obtained were evaluated statistically by Student t-test, Mann Whitney U, Kruskal Wallis and All Pairwise tests (p <0.05).

Results: The bond strength of all permanent implant cements (17.15± 5.75) were found to be significantly higher than the bond strength of temporary implant cements (10.66± 3.85). No significant difference in bond strength was determined between titanium (13.77±4.64), and zirconia (14.04±6.91) abutment materials. There was a significant difference between the superstructure ceramics in terms of bond strength (p = 0.001).

Conclusion: According to the results of this study, it was seen that the abutment material had no effect on the bond strength but the bond strength of the selected cement and restoration was significantly affected.

İmplant simanlarının farklı abutment ve CAD/CAM materyalleri arasındaki bağlantı dayanımı üzerine etkilerinin i̇ncelenmesi

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, zirkonyum ve titanyum abutmentlar ile farklı CAD/CAM materyallerinin 2 farklı implant simanı ile simantasyonunun, makaslama bağlanma dayanımı üzerindeki etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi.

Yöntemler: Toplamda 120 adet dikdörtgen prizma şeklinde monolotik zirkonya ve titanyum örnekler hazırlandı. Zirkonya ile güçlendirilmiş lityum disilikat cam seramik, rezin nano seramik ve itrium ile stabilitize zirkonyum oksit seramik oluşan 3 farklı tip CAD/CAM bloğundan 40’ar adet örnek üretildi. Rezin nanoseramik ve yitrium ile stabilitize zirkonyum oksit seramik blokların simantasyon yüzeyi Al2O3 partikülleri ile kumlandı. Üretilen CAD/CAM örnekler, daimi ve geçici implant simanı kullanılarak simante edildi. Simantasyonu takiben örnekler 24 saat boyunca 37 ºC de damıtılmış su içinde saklandı ve sonra universal test cihazında 0,5 mm/dk hızla makaslama testi uygulandı. Elde edilen değerleri Student t-testi, Mann Whitney U, Kruskal Wallis ve All Pairwise testleri kullanılarak istatistiksel olarak değerlendirildi (p<0,05).

Bulgular: Tüm daimi implant simanların bağlanma dayanımları [17,15 (± 5,75)], geçici implant simanlarının bağlanma dayanımlarından [10,66 (± 3,85)] anlamlı derecede yüksek bulundu. Titanyum [13,77 (± 4,64)], ve zirkonya [14,04 (± 6,91)] abutment materyalleri arasında bağlanma dayanımları bakımından anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmadı. Üst yapı seramikleri arasında bağlanma dayanımı bakımından anlamlı bir farklılık vardı (p=0,001).

Sonuç: Bu çalışmanın sonuçlarına göre abutment materyal tipinin bağlantı dayanımına etkisinin olmadığı ancak seçilen siman ve üst yapı restorasyonunun bağlantı dayanımında anlamlı derecede etkili olduğu görüldü.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Adezyon, CAD/CAM, Mikroshear

Keywords

Adhesion, CAD/CAM, microshear

References

• 1. Gracis S, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL, Silva NR, Bonfante EA. A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2015;28(3):227-235. [CrossRef]
• 2. Özdoğan A, Bayıdır F. CAD/CAM sistemlerinde materyal seçimi ve kullanım alanları. Curr Res Dent Sci. 2019;29:357-361.
• 3. Levine RA, Ganeles J, Jaffin RA, Clem III DS, Beagle JR, Keller GW. Multicenter retrospective analysis of wide-neck dental implants for single molar replacement. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(5):736-742.
• 4. Keenan AV, Levenson D. Are ceramic and metal implant abutments performance similar? Evid Based Dent. 2010;11(3):68-69. [CrossRef]
• 5. Özcan M, Vallittu PK. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of luting cement to ceramics. Dent Mater. 2003;19(8):725-731. [CrossRef]
• 6. Ho GW, Matinlinna JP. Insights on ceramics as dental materials. Part II: chemical surface treatments. Silicon. 2011;3(3):117-123. [CrossRef]
• 7. Schneider RL. Evaluation of the retention of castings to endosseous dental implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1987;58(1):73-78. [CrossRef]
• 8. Weyhrauch M, Igiel C, Scheller H, Weibrich G, Lehmann KM. Fracture strength of monolithic all-ceramic crowns on titanium implant abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(2):304-309. [CrossRef]
• 9. Güler U, Budak Y, Queiroz JRC, Özcan M. Dislodgement resistance of zirconia copings cemented onto zirconia and titanium abutments. Implant Dent. 2017;26(4):510-515. [CrossRef]
• 10. Scherrer SS, Cesar PF, Swain MV. Direct comparison of the bond strength results of the different test methods: A critical literature review. Dent Mater. 2010;26(2):e78-e93. [CrossRef]
• 11. Elsaka SE. Repair bond strength of resin composite to a novel CAD/CAM hybrid ceramic using different repair systems. Dent Mater J. 2015;34(2):161-167. [CrossRef]
• 12. Duzyol M, Sagsoz O, Polat Sagsoz NP, Akgul N, Yildiz M. The effect of surface treatments on the bond strength between CAD/CAM blocks and composite resin. J Prosthodont. 2016;25(6):466-471. [CrossRef]
• 13. Senyilmaz DP, Palin WM, Shortall ACC, Burke FJT. The effect of surface preparation and luting agent on bond strength to a zirconium-based ceramic. Oper Dent. 2007;32(6):623-630. [CrossRef]
• 14. Piascik JR, Swift EJ, Braswell K, Stoner BR. Surface fluorination of zirconia: Adhesive bond strength comparison to commercial primers. Dent Mater. 2012;28(6):604-608. [CrossRef]
• 15. Villard N, Seneviratne C, Tsoi JKH, Heinonen M, Matinlinna J. Candida albicans aspects of novel silane system–coated titanium and zirconia implant surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(3):332-341. [CrossRef]
• 16. Gökçe B, Özpinar B, Dündar M, Cömlekoglu E, Sen BH, Güngör MA. Bond strengths of all-ceramics: Acid vs laser etching. Oper Dent. 2007;32(2):173-178. [CrossRef]
• 17. Kussano CM, Bonfante G, Batista JG, Pinto JHN. Evaluation of shear bond strength of composite to porcelain according to surface treatment. Braz Dent J. 2003;14(2):132-135. [CrossRef]
• 18. Girish PV, Dinesh U, Bhat CS, Shetty PC. Comparison of shear bond strength of metal brackets bonded to porcelain surface using different surface conditioning methods: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2012;13(4):487-493. [CrossRef]
• 19. Ebert T, Elsner L, Hirschfelder U, Hanke S. Shear bond strength of brackets on restorative materials: Comparison on various dental restorative materials using the universal primer Monobond® Plus. J Orofac Orthop. 2016;77(2):73-84. [CrossRef]
• 20. GmbH MAW. Ivoclar Vivadent Internet. https://www.ivoclarvivadent.com/en/p/dental-professional/products/lutin-material/bondingagents-luting-composites/monobond-plus.
• 21. Ebert A, Hedderich J, Kern M. Retention of zirconia ceramic copings bonded to titanium abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(6):921-927.
• 22. Bresciano M, Schierano G, Manzella C, Screti A, Bignardi C, Preti G. Retention of luting agents on implant abutments of different height and taper. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16(5):594-598. [CrossRef]
• 23. Özcan M, Mese A. Effect of ultrasonic versus manual cementation on the fracture strength of resin composite laminates. Oper Dent. 2009;34(4):437-442. [CrossRef]
• 24. Yanagida H, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Bonding of prosthetic composite material to Ti-6Al-7Nb alloy with eight metal conditioners and a surface modification technique. Am J Dent. 2001;14(5):291-294.
• 25. Della Bona A, Van Noort R. Shear vs. tensile bond strength of resin composite bonded to ceramic. J Dent Res. 1995;74(9):1591-1596. [CrossRef]
• 26. Valandro LF, Ozcan M, Amaral R, Passos SP, Bottino MA. Does the bonded cross-sectional surface area affect the microtensile bond strength of resin cement to glass-ceramic? Minerva Stomatol. 2008;57(10):497-504.
• 27. Placido E, Meira JB, Lima RG, Muench A, de Souza RM, Ballester RY. Shear versus micro-shear bond strength test: A finite element stress analysis. Dent Mater. 2007;23(9):1086-1092. [CrossRef]
• 28. Otani A, Amaral M, May LG, Cesar PF, Valandro LF. A critical evaluation of bond strength tests for the assessment of bonding to Y-TZP. Dent Mater. Dent Mater. 2015;31(6):648-656. [CrossRef]
• 29. Valandro LF, Özcan M, Amaral R, Vanderlei A, Bottino MA. Effect of testing methods on the bond strength of resin to zirconia-alumina ceramic: microtensile versus shear test. Dent Mater J. 2008;27(6):849-855. [CrossRef]
• 30. Al-Dohan HM, Yaman P, Dennison JB, Razzoog ME, Lang BR. Shear strength of core-veneer interface in bi-layered ceramics. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91(4):349-355. [CrossRef]
• 31. Gültekin P, Gültekin BA. Farklı simanların i̇mplantüstü kuron protezlerinin tutuculuğuna etkisi. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 2012;46:43-52.
• 32. Wadhwani C, Chung KH. Bond strength and interactions of machined titanium-based alloy with dental cements. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(5):660-665. [CrossRef] 283 Curr Res Dent Sci 2022 32(4): 277-283 l doi: 10.54614/CRDS.2022.6233
• 33. Elsaka SE. Effectiveness of titanium tetrafluoride on the bond strength of composite cement to titanium. J Adhes Dent. 2018;20(2):143-149. [CrossRef]
• 34. Frankenberger R, HartmannVE, Krech M, et al. Adhesive luting of new CAD/CAM materials. Int J Comput Dent. 2015;18(1):9-20.
• 35. Bellan MC, Cunha PFJSD da, Tavares JG, Spohr AM, Mota EG. Microtensile bond strength of CAD/CAM materials to dentin under different adhesive strategies. Braz Oral Res. 2017;31:e109. [CrossRef]
• 36. Menon NS, Kumar GP, Jnanadev KR, Satish Babu CL, Shetty S. Assessment and comparison of retention of zirconia copings luted with different cements onto zirconia and titanium abutments: An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016;16(2):136-141. [CrossRef]
• 37. Sellers K, Powers JM, Kiat-amnuay S. Retentive strength of implantsupported CAD-CAM lithium disilicate crowns on zirconia custom abutments using 6 different cements. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117(2):247-252. [CrossRef]
• 38. de Oliveira Dal Piva AM, Mendes Tribst JP, Bottino MA. Evaluation of shear bond strength and shear stress on zirconia reinforced lithium silicate and high translucency zirconia. J Oral Res. 2018;7(1):30-36. [CrossRef]
• 39. Secilmis A, Ustun O, Kecik Buyukhatipoglu I. Evaluation of the shear bond strength of two resin cements on different CAD/CAM materials. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2016;30(9):983-993. [CrossRef]
• 40. Cekic-Nagas I, Ergun G, Egilmez F, Vallittu PK, Lassila LVJ. Microshear bond strength of different resin cements to ceramic/glasspolymer CAD-CAM block materials. J Prosthodont Res. 2016; 60(4):265-273. [CrossRef]
• 41. Andreatta Filho OD, Bottino MA, Nishioka RS, Valandro LF, Leite FPP. Effect of thermocycling on the bond strength of a glass-infiltrated ceramic and a resin luting cement. J Appl Oral Sci. 2003;11(1):61-67. [CrossRef