The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지

COMPARISON OF RETENTIVE FORCES OF TEMPORARY CEMENTS AND ABUTMENT HEIGHT USED WITH IMPLANT-SUPPORTED PROSTHESES

  • Lee, Dong-Hee (Department of Restorative Dentistry, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Korea University) ;
  • Suh, Kyu-Won (Department of Restorative Dentistry, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Korea University) ;
  • Ryu, Jae-Jun (Department of Restorative Dentistry, Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Korea University)
  • Published : 2008.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Recent data regarding the effects the cement type and abutment heights on the retentive force of a prosthetic crown are inconsistent and unable to suggest clinical guidelines. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: This study evaluated the effects of different types of temporary cements and abutment heights on the retentive strength of cement-retained implant-supported prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prefabricated implant abutments, 4 mm in diameter, $8^{\circ}$taper per side, and light chamfer margins, were used. The abutment heights of the implants were 4 mm, 5.5 mm and 7 mm. Seven specimens of a single crown similar to a first premolar were fabricated. Six commercially available temporary cements, TempBond, TempBond NE, Cavitec, Procem, Dycal, and IRM, were used in this study. Twenty-four hours after cementation, the retentive strengths were measured using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The cementation procedures were repeated 3 times. The data was analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and a Tukey test (${\alpha}$=0.05). RESULTS: The tensile bond strength ranged from 1.76 kg to 19.98 kg. The lowest tensile strengths were similar in the TempBond and Cavitec agents. Dycal showed the highest tensile bond strength (P<0.01). More force was required to remove the crowns cemented to the long abutments (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: TempBond and Cavitec agents showed the lowest mean tensile bond strength. The Dycal agent showed more than double the tensile bond strength of the TempBond agent.

Keywords

References

  1. Misch CE. Screw-retained versus cement-retained implant- supported prostheses. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1995;7:15-8
  2. Chee W, Felton DA, Johnson PF, Sullivan DY. Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: which is better? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:137-41
  3. 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;12:660-5
  4. Pauletto N, Lahiffe BJ, Walton JN. Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:865-8
  5. Ramp MH, Dixon DL, Ramp LC, Breeding LC, Barber LL. Tensile bond strengths of provisional luting agents used with an implant system. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:510-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70203-9
  6. Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Bogacki MT, Tietge JD. Use of luting agents with an implant system: Part I. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:737-41 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90194-F
  7. Voitik AJ. The Kulzer abutment luting; Kal technique. A direct assembly framework method for osseointegrated implant prostheses. Implant Soc 1991;2:11-4
  8. Michalakis KX, Pissiotis AL, Hirayama H. Cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:545-9
  9. Akashia AE, Francischone CE, Tokutsune E, da Silva W, Jr. Effects of different types of temporary cements on the tensile strength and marginal adaptation of crowns on implants. J Adhes Dent 2002;4:309-15
  10. Bernal G, Okamura M, Munoz CA. The effects of abutment taper, length and cement type on resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont 2003;12:111-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1059-941X(03)00006-8
  11. Crim GA, Swartz ML, Phillips RW. Comparison of four thermocycling techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:50-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(85)90064-2
  12. Covey DA, Kent DK, St Germain HA, Jr., Koka S. Effects of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:344-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70138-7
  13. Squier RS, Agar JR, Duncan JP, Taylor TD. Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:793-8
  14. Akca K, Iplikcioglu H, Cehreli MC. Comparison of uniaxial resistance forces of cements used with implant- supported crowns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:536-42
  15. Kent DK, Koka S, Froeschle ML. Retention of cemented implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont 1997;6:193-6 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.1997.tb00090.x
  16. Schneider RL. Evaluation of the retention of castings to endosseous dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58:73-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(87)80147-6
  17. Lee HY, Lee HS. In vitro study of the tensile bond strength of cement-retained single implant prosthesis by the various provisional luting cements and the surface treatment of abutments. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2002;40:296-305
  18. Maxwell AW, Blank LW, Pelleu GB, Jr. Effect of crown preparation height on the retention and resistance of gold castings. Gen Dent 1990;38:200-2
  19. Koka S, Ewoldsen NO, Dana CL, Beatty MW. The effect of cementing agent and technique on the retention of a CeraOne gold cylinder: a pilot study. Implant Dent 1995;4:32-5 https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-199504000-00005
  20. Mansour A, Ercoli C, Graser G, Tallents R, Moss M. Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:343-8 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130401.x
  21. Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Lilly KR. Use of luting agents with an implant system: Part II. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:885-90 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90544-K
  22. Mathews MF, Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Aquilino SA. The effect of connector design on cement retention in an implant and natural tooth-supported fixed partial denture. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:822-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80021-6
  23. Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:537-52 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70208-8
  24. Becker W, Becker BE. Replacement of maxillary and mandibular molars with single endosseous implant restorations: a retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:51-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80229-X
  25. Singer A, Serfaty V. Cement-retained implant-supported fixed partial dentures: a 6-month to 3-year followup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:645-9
  26. Baldissara P, Comin G, Martone F, Scotti R. Comparative study of the marginal microleakage of six cements in fixed provisional crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:417-22 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70005-8