THE EFFECT OF FABRICATION TECHNIQUE AND CEMENT TYPE ON THE RETENTION STRENGTH OF IMPLANT SUPPORTED CROWNS

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the retention strength of implant-supported crowns produced by traditional lost-wax, direct metal laser sintering, CAD/CAM technique by using three different luting cements. Materials and Methods: Ninety standard titanium abutments screwed to analogs then mounted in acrylic resin. Samples divided into three main groups according to the manufacturing technique (N=30). Then groups divided into three subgroups based on the cement type used (n=10). The specimens subjected to the pull-out test by using an universal testing machine at a 1 mm/min crosshead speed. The highest pull-out strength values were recorded in Newton and statistical analyzes were performed by using Two-way ANOVA test and multiple comparison test with Bonferroni correction at a significance level of 0.05. Results: The two-way analysis of variance revealed that the fabrication technique and cement type had a significant effect on pull-out strength (p<0.05). However, the interaction of fabrication technique and cement type did not significantly affect the pull-out strength of groups(p>0.05). The highest pull-out strength was found in the laser sintering group, while the conventional technique had the lowest values. Within the subgroups self-adhesive resin cement had the highest pull-out strength, traditional cement subgroup had the lowest. Conclusions: Fabrication technique and cement type have statistically significant effect on the retention of the implant-supported crowns.

Keywords

• CAD/CAM
• Implant-supported Crowns
• Laser Sintering
• Retention Strength

References

1. 1. Alvarez-Arenal A, Gonzalez-Gonzalez I, deLlanos-Lanchares H, Brizuela-Velasco A, Pinés-Hueso J, Ellakuria-Echebarria J. Retention Strength after Compressive Cyclic Loading of Five Luting Agents Used in Implant-Supported Prostheses. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2018:2107027.
2. 2. Gultekin P, Gultekin BA, Aydin M, Yalcin S. Cement selection for implant-supported crowns fabricated with different luting space settings. J Prosthodont. 2013;22:112–119.
3. 3. Lopes ACO, Machado CM, Bonjardim, LR, Bergamo ETP, Ramalho IS, Witek L, Coelho PG, Bonfante EA. The Effect of CAD/CAM Crown Material and Cement Type on Retention to Implant Abutments. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(2):e552–e556.
4. 4. Uzun G. An Overview of Dental CAD/CAM Systems. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment.2008; 22:530–535. doi:10.1080/13102818.2008.10817506.
5. 5. Van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater. 2012;28(1):3–12. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014.
6. 6. Christensen GJ. Computerized restorative dentistry. State of the art. J Am Dent Assoc. 2001;132(9):1301-1303.
7. 7. Tamac E, Toksavul S, Toman M. Clinical marginal and internal adaptation of CAD/CAM milling, laser sintering, and cast metal ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112:909–913.
8. 8. Gurel, K, Toksavul S, Toman M, Tamac E. Marginal and internal adaptation of metal-ceramic crowns with cobalt-chrome and titanium framework fabricated with CAD/CAM and casting technique. Niger J Clin Pract. 2019;22:812–816.

9. 9. Heintze SD. Crown pull-off test (crown retention test) to evaluate the bonding effectiveness of luting agents. Dent Mater. 2010;26(3):193-206. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2009.10.004.
10. 10. Yildirim B, Paken G. Evaluation of the Marginal and Internal Fit of Implant-Supported Metal Copings Fabricated with 3 Different Techniques: An In Vitro Study. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(3):315-320. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13022.
11. 11. Maeyama H, Sawase T, Jimbo R, Kamada K, Suketa N, Fukui J, Atsuta M. Retentive strength of metal copings on prefabricated abutments with five different cements. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7(4):229-234.
12. 12. Garg P, Pujari M, Prithviraj D, Khare S. Retentiveness of various luting agents used with implant supported prosthesis: an in vitro study. J Oral Implantol. 2014;40(6): 649-654.
13. 13. Wadhwani C, Hess T, Piñeyro A, Opler R ,Chung KH. Cement application techniques in luting implant-supported crowns: a quantitative and qualitative survey. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27(4):859-864.
14. 14. Liang T, Hu X, Zhu L, Pan X, Zhou Y, Liu J. Comparative in vitro study of cementing techniques for implant-supported restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(1): 59-66. 15. Örtorp A, Jönsson D, Mouhsen A, von Steyern, PV. The fit of cobalt–chromium three-unit fixed dental prostheses fabricated with four different techniques: A comparative in vitro study. Dent Mater. 2011;27:356–363.
15. 16. Clayton GH, Driscoll CF, Hondrum SO. The effect of luting agents on the retention and marginal adaptation of the CeraOne implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12(5):660-665.
16. 17. Nematollahi F, Beyabanaki E, Alikhasi M. Cement selection for cement-retained implant supported prostheses: A literature review. J Prosthodont. 2016; 25(7):599-606. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12361.
17. 18. Mehl C, Harder S, Wolfart M, Kern M, Wolfart S. Retrievability of implant-retained crowns following cementation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(12):1304-1311.