Comparison of Pull-Out Resistance Different Lutıing Cements at Implant Supported Fixed Prosthesis

Abstract

Purpose: One of the most important factors that effects retention of cement-retained implant supported fixed prosthesis is used the type of the luting cement. The resistance of the luting cements against the displacing forces on the fixed prosthesis directly influence the success of the restorations. The purpose of this study is to compare the retentive properties of three different dental luting cements that are being used routinely on cement retained implant supported fixed prosthesis. Material and methods: Resin based, glass ionomer and zinc phosphate luting cements, widely used inclinically, were used in this study. 21 dental implant abutment and 21 dental implants laboratory analogs were used. Metallic crowns per abutment was obtained by casting. Dental implant laboratory analogs were mounted in autopolimmerization acrylic resin blocks. They were divided into three groups according to types of luting cements. Dental implant laboratory analogs were paired with abutments and cast metallic crowns. Dental implant laboratory analogs incorporated with abutments and using a dental surveyor were aligned vertically and centrally positioned within acrylic blocs. Three different types of luting cements were prepared according to manufacturer’s recommendation and in uniform concistency and metallic crowns cemented using finger pressure. After 24 hours, the specimens were subjected to a pull-out test using an universal testing machine. Results: According to this study, zinc phosphate luting cement showed the highest pull-out resistance and glass ionomer luting cement showed the lowest. Conclusion: In order to increase the retention of cement-retained implant supported fixed prosthesis, the use of zinc phosphate luting cement is recommended

Keywords

• Cementable implant supported crowns, Retantion forces, Surface Topography of Abutments

İmplant destekli sabit protezlerde farklı yapıştırma simanlarının çekme dirençlerinin karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç: Siman ile yapıştırılan implant destekli sabit protezlerin tutuculuğu üzerinde etkili olan önemli faktörlerden biri, kullanılan yapıştırma simanının tipidir. Sabit protezi yerinden çıkarıcı kuvvetlere karşı yapıştırma simanlarının gösterdiği direnç restorasyonun başarısını direkt etkilemektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı; implant destekli sabit protezlerde simante edilebilen sistemlerde klinikte rutin olarak kullanılan üç farklı yapıştırma simanının retantif özelliklerinin birbirleriyle kıyaslanmasıdır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışmada, klinikte yaygın olarak kullanılan rezin esaslı yapıştırma simanı, cam iyonomer ve çinko fosfat yapıştırma simanları kullanılmıştır. 21 dental implant abutmentı destek ve 21 adet dental implant laboratuvar analoğu kullanılmıştır. Her abutment için ayrı metal kronlar döküm yoluyla elde edilmiştir. Dental implant laboratuvar analogları otopolimerizan akrilik rezin bloklar içerisine gömülmüştür. Bu metal kronları farklı yapıştırma simanlarına göre üç gruba ayrılmıştır. Laboratuvar implant analogları abutmentlarla ve döküm metal kronlarla eşleştirilmiştir. İmplant analogları abutmentlarla birleştirilmiş ve paralelometre yardımıyla akrilik kalıpların merkezine dik şekilde yerleştirilmiştir. Her üç yapıştırma simanı da üretici firmaların tavsiyelerine göre hazırlanmış ve metal kron kopingleri parmak basıncı ile simante edilmiştir. Örnekler 24 saat bekletildikten sonra, universal test cihazı kullanılarak çekme testine tabi tutulmuştur

Keywords

• Simante edilen implant destekli kronlar, Tutucu kuvvetler,Abutmentlerin yüzey morfolojisi

References

1. Di Felice R, Rappelli G, Camaioni E, Cat- tani M, Meyer J-M, Belse UC. Cementable imp- lant crowns composed of cast superstructure fra- meworks luted to electroformed primary copings: an in vitro retention study. Clin Oral Impl Res 2007;18:108-113.
2. James L.S, Charles W, Terry W. Cement selection for cement-retained crown technique with Dental Implants. J Prosthodont 2008; 17: 92-96.
3. Tarica D.Y, Alvarado V.M, Truong S.T. Survey of United States dental schools on cementa- tion protocols for implant crowns restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:68-79.
4. Campos TN, Adachi LK, Yoshida H, Shinkai RS, Neto PT, Frigerio ML. Effect of sur- face topography of implant abutments on retention of cemented single-tooth crowns. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30:409- 413.
5. Dudley JE, Richards LC, Abbott JR. Re- tention of cast crown copings cemented to implant abutments. Australian Dent J 2008; 53: 332-339.
6. Wolfart M, Wolfart S, Kern M. Retention forces and seating discrepancies of implant retained casting after cementation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006; 21:519-524.
7. Langoni S, Sartori M, Maroni I, Baldoni M. Intraoral luting: modified prosthetic design to achieve passivity, precision of fit and esthetics for a cement-retained, implant-supported metal-resin- fixed complete denture. J Prosthodont 2010;19: 166-170.
8. Bernal G, Okamura M, Munoz CA.The effect of abutment taper, length and cement type on resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained, imp- lant- supported restorations. J Prosthodont 2003; 12: 111-115.

9. Kokubo Y, Kano T, Tsumita M, Sakurai S, Itayama A, Fukushima S. Retention of zirconia copings on zirconia implant abutments cemented with provisional luting agents. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37:48-53.
10. Mehl C, Harder S, Wolfart M, Kern M, Wolfart S. Retrievability of implant-retained crowns following cementation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19 (12):1304-11.
11. Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18(5):719-28.
12. Clayton GH, Driscoll CF, Hondrum SO. The effect of luting agents on the retention and marginal adaptation of the CeraOne implant sys- tem.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997; 12(5):660-5.
13. Squier RS, Agar JR, Duncon JP, Taylor TD. Retentiveness of dental cements used with me- tallic implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001; 16(6):793-8.
14. Mansour A, Ercoli C, Graser G, Tallents R, Moss M. Comparative evaluation of casting re- tention using the ITI solid abutment with six ce- ments. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13(4):343-8.
15. Pegoraro TA, Silva NR, Carvalho RM. Cements for use in esthetic dentistry. Dent Clin North Am 2007; 51(2):453-71.
16. Johnson GH, Lepe X, Zhang H, Wataha JC. Retention of metal-ceramic crowns with con- temporary dental cements. J Am Dent Assoc 2009; 140(9):1125-36.
17. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M. Resin- ceramic bonding: a review of the literature. J Prost- het Dent 2003; 89(3):268-74.
18. Platt JA. Resin cements: into the 21st cen- tury. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1999; 20(12):1173-6
19. Radovic I, Monticelli F, Goracci C, Vuli- cevic ZR, Ferrari M. Self-adhesive resin cements: a literature review. J Adhes Dent 2008;10(4):251-8.
20. Hill EE. Dental cements for definitive lu- ting: a review and practical clinical considerations. Dent Clin North Am 2007; 51(3):643-58.
21. Pan YH, Lin TM, Liu PR, Ramp L. The effect of luting agents on retention of dental imp- lant-supported prostheses, 2014 Mar 25(Epub ahead of print).
22. Mansour A, Ercoli C, Graser C, Tal- lents R, Moss M. Comparative evaluation casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six ce- ments. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13: 343-348.
23. Covey DA, Kent DK, St Germain HA, Koka S. Effects of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant- supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000; 83(3):344- 8.
24. Juntavee N, Millstein PL.Effect of sur- face roughness and cement space on crown reten- tion. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:482-486.