Effect of luting space and cements on retention of implant supported crowns fabricated by laser sintering

Year 2017, Volume: 4 Issue: 1, 10 - 16, 28.04.2017

Özgün Yusuf Özyılmaz

https://doi.org/10.15311/1441.309573

Cited By: 2

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the retention strength of five different cements used for implant supported crowns with two cement gap values.

Methods: Standard titanium abutments were scanned by means of a 3D digital laser scanner. 100 standard metal copings were designed by a CAD/CAM system with two cement gap values (20 and 40μm). The copings were cemented to the abutments using the following five cements (n=10). Poly F (PF), GC FujiCEM (GCF), Rely X (RX), MIS Crown Set(MCS) and Multilink N (MN). The specimens were placed in 100% humudity for 24 hours then specimens were thermal cycled 1000 times. After thermal cycling specimens were subjected to a pull-out test using a universal testing machine at a 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. The test results were analyzed with two-way ANOVA, followed by multiple comparisons using Tamhane tests (α=0.05).

Results: Statistical analysis revealed that significant differences were observed among cement groups (p<0.05). PF and MN had the highest and the least mean retentive strength, respectively. No significant difference was found between RX and MCS. Increasing the cement gap from 20 to 40 μm improved retention significantly for each cement group (p<0.05).

Conclusion: The ranking of cements presented in the study is meant to be an arbitrary guide for the clinician in deciding the appropriate cement selection for CAD/CAM fabricated metal copings onto implant abutments.

Keywords

Cementation, cement gap, implant-supported prosthesis, retention

References

• 1.Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77: 28-35.
• 2.Chee W, Felton DA, Johnson PF, Sullivan DY. Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: which is beter? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14: 137-141.
• 3.Taylor TD, Agar JR, Vogiatzi T. Implant prosthodontics: current perspective and future directions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15: 66-75.
• 4.Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18: 719-28.
• 5.Vigolo P, Givani A, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 4-year prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19: 260-5.
• 6.Weber HP, Sukotjo C. Does the type of implant prosthesis affect outcomes in the partially edentulous patient ? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22: 140-72.
• 7.Mehl C, Harder S, Wolfart M, Kern M Wolfart S. Retrievability of implant-retained crowns following cementation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 1304-11.
• 8.Santosa RE, Martin W, Morton D. Effects of a cementing technique in addition to luting agent on the uniaxial retention force of a single-tooth implant-supported restoration: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010; 25: 3145-52.
• 9.Assenza B, Scarano A, Leghissa G, Carusi G, Thams U, Roman FS et al. Screw-vs cement-implant-retained restorations: an experimental study in the beagle. Part 1. Screw and abutment loosening. J Oral Implantol 2005; 31: 242-46.
• 10.Torrado E, Ercoli C, Al Mardini M, Graser GN, Tallents RH, Cordaro L. A comparison of the porcelain fracture resistance of screw-retained and cement-retained implant-supported metal-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91: 532-37.