Simante implant üstü restorasyonlardaki farklı açılar uygulanmış abutmentlerde çevresel oluk ve deliğin tutuculuğa etkisi

Year 2024, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 49 - 54, 26.04.2024

Hilal Asutay Nuran Yanıkoğlu

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1234649

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı açılarda hazırlanmış implant abutmentlerine uygulanan çevresel oluk ve deliklerin implant destekli restorasyonların tutuculuğuna etkisinin araştırılmasıdır.
Gereç ve yöntemler: Toplam altmış adet standart implant dayanağı kullanıldı. Abutmentler CNC üzerinde 15° ve 30° açılarda olmak üzere iki gruba ayrıldı. Modifikasyona göre her grup 3 alt gruba ayrıldı; (1) kontrol, (2) çevresel oluklu ve (3) havalandırma delikli. Tüm abutmentler için lazer sinterleme kullanılarak altmış adet metal altyapı hazırlandı. Tüm metal altyapılar, öjenol içermeyen geçici siman ile simante edilmiştir. Daha sonra, tüm örneklere termal döngü işlemi yapıldı. Tüm örneklere universal test cihazında 5mm/dk başlık hızı ile vertikal çekme testi uygulandı. İstatistiksel analiz, iki yönlü ANOVA, post hoc Tukey (HSD) test ve bağımsız student t-testleri ile yapıldı.
Bulgular: Sonuçlara göre 15° ve 30° grupları arasında tutuculuk değerleri açısından anlamlı fark bulundu (p < 0.001). Ek delik ve oluklar, her iki grupta tutuculuğu arttırdı. Tutuculuk değerlerinin en yüksek ortalama değeri (185.00 ± 23.08 N) 15° oluklu grubunda, en düşük tutuculuk ortalama değeri (27.60 ± 14.84 N) 30° kontrolde gösterildi. Oluk ilave edilen grupların ortalama değerleri her iki grupta da en yüksek değerlere sahip bulundu. Tüm gruplarda, tüm alt gruplar arasında anlamlı farklılıklar bulundu (p < 0.05).
Sonuçlar: Artan abutment açısı tutuculuğu azaltırken, uygulanan delik ve oluk ilavesinin tutuculuğu arttırdığı görülmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: İmplant destekli diş protezi, implant, yapıştırma, retansiyon

Keywords

tutuculuk, simante implant, siman, implant

Ethical Statement

Bu makale, sempozyum ya da kongrede sunulan bir tebliğin içeriği geliştirilerek ve kısmen değiştirilerek üretilmemiştir. Bu çalışma, yüksek lisans ya da doktora tezi esas alınarak hazırlanmıştır. Bu çalışmanın hazırlanma sürecinde bilimsel ve etik ilkelere uyulduğu ve yararlanılan tüm çalışmaların kaynakçada belirtildiği beyan olunur.

Supporting Institution

Atatürk üniversitesi diş hekimliği fakültesi

Project Number

2013/213

The Effect of Different Angled Abutments with Peripheral Groove and Vent Hole on the Retention of Cement Retained Implant – Supported Restorations

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of vent hole or peripheral groove on retention of differently angled (15 ° and 30 o) abutments in of cement retained implant supported restorations. Methods: A total of sixty standart implant abutments were used. Abutments were divided into two groups at 15 ° and 30 ° angles on CNC. According to the modification, each group were divided into 3 subgroups; (1) no modifications, (2) with peripheral groove and (3) with vent hole. Sixty metal frameworks were prepared using laser sintering to fit all abutments. All laser sintered frameworks were cemented with eugenol-free provisional cement. Then, all specimens were thermocycled. The frameworks were removed from the abutments by using the universal test machine and the peak removal force was recorded. Statistical analysis were performed with two-way ANOVA, post hoc Tukey’s (HSD) test-adjusted independent samples t-tests. Results: According to the results, there were significant differences between 15 ° and 30 ° groups in terms of retention values (p < 0.001). Additional hole and grooves enhanced retention in both groups. The highest mean value of vertical pull-out strength (185.00 ± 23.08 N) was showed in 15 ° additional grooves group, and the lowest mean value of vertical pull-out strength (27.60 ± 14.84 N) was showed in 30° control group. Means values of additional groove specimens had the highest scores in both groups. In all groups, there were significant differences between all subgroups (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Increased abutment angle decreases retention, while addition of hole and groove increases.

Keywords

implant-supported dental prothesis, dental implant, cementation, abutment, retantion

Ethical Statement

This article is not the version of a presentation. This study was prepared on the basis of a master's or doctoral thesis. It is declared that during the preparation process of this study, scientific and ethical principles were followed and all the studies benefited are stated in the bibliography.

Project Number

2013/213

References

• 1. Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. St Louis, Mo: Mosby Year Book; 1993. 79-81 p.
• 2. Shillingburg H, Jacobi R, Brackett S, Hobo S, Whitsett L. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics. Chicago, USA: Quintessence Publishing Co; 1997. 85-90, 124-6 p.
• 3. Hamed MT, Abdullah Mously H, Khalid Alamoudi S, Hossam Hashem AB, Hussein Naguib G. A Systematic Review of Screw versus Cement-Retained Fixed Implant Supported Reconstructions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2020;12:9-16.
• 4. Saker S, Al-Zordk W, Özcan M. Resistance to Fracture of Zirconia Abutments with Different Angulations: Impact of Implant Platform Diameter. Eur J Dent. 2020;14(4):517-524. doi:10.1055/s-0040-1709947
• 5. Sadrimanesh R, Siadat H, Sadr-Eshkevari P, Monzavi A, Maurer P, Rashad A. Alveolar bone stress around implants with different abutment angulation: an FE-analysis of anterior maxilla. Implant Dent. 2012;21(3):196-201.
• 6. The glossary of prosthodontic terms. The Academy of Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71(1):41-112. Epub 1994/01/01.
• 7. Reisbick MH, Shillingburg HT Jr. Effect of preparation geometry on retention and resistance of cast gold restorations. J Calif Dent Assoc. 1975;3(4):51-59.
• 8. Proussaefs P, Campagni W, Bernal G, Goodacre C, Kim J. The effectiveness of auxiliary features on a tooth preparation with inadequate resistance form. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91(1):33-41. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.10.005
• 9. Gebhardt A, Schmidt FM, Hotter JS, Sokalla W, Sokalla P. Additive Manufacturing by Selective Laser Melting The Realizer Desktop Machine and its application for the Dental Industry. Physcs Proc. 2010;5:543-9.
• 10. Saleh M, Taşar-Faruk S. Comparing the marginal leakage and retention of implant-supported restorations cemented by four different dental cements. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21(6):1181-1188
• 11. Wadhwani C, Piñeyro A, Hess T, Zhang H, Chung KH. Effect of implant abutment modification on the extrusion of excess cement at the crown-abutment margin for cement-retained implant restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26(6):1241-1246.
• 12. Ajay R, Rakshagan V, Kamatchi M, SelvaBalaji A, Sivakumar JSK, Kumar MS. Effect of Implant Abutment Acid Etching on the Retention of Crowns Luted with Different Cements: An In Vitro Comparative Evaluation. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2019;11(Suppl 2):S360-S364.
• 13. Güncü MB, Cakan U, Canay S. Comparison of 3 luting agents on retention of implant-supported crowns on 2 different abutments. Implant Dent. 2011;20(5):349-353.
• 14. Naik S, Tredwin CJ, Nesbit M, Setchell DJ, Moles DR. The effect of engaging the screw access channel of an implant abutment with a cement-retained restoration. J Prosthodont. 2009;18(3):245-248.
• 15. Ali AO, Kelly JR, Zandparsa R. The influence of different convergence angles and resin cements on the retention of zirconia copings. J Prosthodont. 2012;21(8):614-621.
• 16. Bernal G, Okamura M, Muñoz CA. The effects of abutment taper, length and cement type on resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont. 2003;12(2):111-115.
• 17. Patel D, Invest JC, Tredwin CJ, Setchell DJ, Moles DR. An analysis of the effect of a vent hole on excess cement expressed at the crown-abutment margin for cement-retained implant crowns. J Prosthodont. 2009;18(1):54-59.
• 18. Lewinstein I, Block L, Lehr Z, Ormianer Z, Matalon S. An in vitro assessment of circumferential grooves on the retention of cement-retained implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;106(6):367-372.
• 19. Sagsoz NP, Yanıkoglu N. Evaluation of the fracture resistance of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing monolithic crowns prepared in different cement thicknesses. Niger J Clin Pract. 2018;21(4):417-422.
• 20. Kocaağaoğlu H, Albayrak H, Cinel Sahin S, Gürbulak AG. Evaluation of marginal adaptation in three-unit frameworks fabricated with conventional and powder-free digital impression techniques. J Adv Prosthodont. 2019;11(5):262-270.
• 21. Cano-Batalla J, Soliva-Garriga J, Campillo-Funollet M, Munoz-Viveros CA, Giner-Tarrida L. Influence of abutment height and surface roughness on in vitro retention of three luting agents. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(1):36-41.
• 22. Emms M, Tredwin CJ, Setchell DJ, Moles DR. The effects of abutment wall height, platform size, and screw access channel filling method on resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont. 2007;16(1):3-9.
• 23. Michalakis K, Pissiotis AL, Kang K, Hirayama H, Garefis PD, Petridis H. The effect of thermal cycling and air abrasion on cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(4):569-574.
• 24. da Rocha PV, Freitas MA, de Morais Alves da Cunha T. Influence of screw access on the retention of cement-retained implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(4):264-268.
• 25. Târtea DA, Ionescu M, Manolea HO, Mercuț V, Obădan E, Amărăscu MO, Mărășescu PC, Dăguci L, Popescu SM. Comparative Study of Dental Custom CAD-CAM Implant Abutments and Dental Implant Stock Abutments. J Clin Med. 2023 Mar 8;12(6):2128.
• 26. Choi KH, Son K, Lee DH, Lee KB. Influence of abutment height and convergence angle on the retrievability of cement-retained implant prostheses with a lingual slot. J Adv Prosthodont. 2018;10(5):381-387.
• 27. Schmitt CM, Nogueira-Filho G, Tenenbaum HC, et al. Performance of conical abutment (Morse Taper) connection implants: a systematic review. J Biomed Mater Res A. 2014;102(2):552-574.
• 28. Tiu J, Al-Amleh B, Waddell JN, Duncan WJ. Clinical tooth preparations and associated measuring methods: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(3):175-184.
• 29. Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Linkeviciene L, Maslova N, Puriene A. The influence of the cementation margin position on the amount of undetected cement. A prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(1):71-76.
• 30. Roudsari RV, Satterthwaite JD. The influence of auxiliary features on the resistance form of short molars prepared for complete cast crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;106(5):305-309.
• 31. Shrivastav M. Effect of surface treatments on the retention of implant-supported cement-retained bridge with short abutments: An in vitro comparative evaluation. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018;18(2):154-160.
• 32. Wadhwani C, Hess T, Pineyro A, Chung KH. Effects of abutment and screw access channel modification on dislodgement of cement-retained implant-supported restorations. Int J Prosthodont. 2013;26(1):54-56.
• 33. Stephenson MK, Dow DE. The community FabLab platform: applications and implications in biomedical engineering. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014;2014:1821-1825.
• 34. de Holanda Cavalcanti Pereira AK, de Oliveira Limirio JPJ, Cavalcanti do Egito Vasconcelos B, Pellizzer EP, Dantas de Moraes SL. Mechanical behavior of titanium and zirconia abutments at the implant-abutment interface: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. Published online March 12, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.006
• 35. Revilla-León M, Abaei DS, Tittle A, Zandinejad A. Additively manufactured implant abutment screw-access guide to remove a cement-retained implant crown: A technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;127(2):219-222. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.019
• 36. Safari S, Hosseini Ghavam F, Amini P, Yaghmaei K. Effects of abutment diameter, luting agent type, and re-cementation on the retention of implant-supported CAD/CAM metal copings over short abutments. J Adv Prosthodont. 2018;10(1):1-7.
• 37. AlShaarani F, Alaisami RM, Aljerf L, Jamous IA, Elias K, Jaber A. An auxiliary factor for increasing the retention of short abutments. Heliyon. 2019;5(10):e02674. Published 2019 Oct 21.