The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of abutment diameter, luting agent type, and re-cementation on the retention of implant-supported CAD/CAM metal copings over short abutments

  • Safari, Sina (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Ghavam, Fereshteh Hosseini (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Amini, Parviz (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Yaghmaei, Kaveh (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2017.03.14
  • Accepted : 2017.07.04
  • Published : 2018.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of abutment diameter, cement type, and re-cementation on the retention of implant-supported CAD/CAM metal copings over short abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Sixty abutments with two different diameters, the height of which was reduced to 3 mm, were vertically mounted in acrylic resin blocks with matching implant analogues. The specimens were divided into 2 diameter groups: 4.5 mm and 5.5 mm (n=30). For each abutment a CAD/CAM metal coping was manufactured, with an occlusal loop. Each group was sub-divided into 3 sub-groups (n=10). In each subgroup, a different cement type was used: resin-modified glass-ionomer, resin cement and zinc-oxide-eugenol. After incubation and thermocycling, the removal force was measured using a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min. In zinc-oxide-eugenol group, after removal of the coping, the cement remnants were completely cleaned and the copings were re-cemented with resin cement and re-tested. Two-way ANOVA, post hoc Tukey tests, and paired t-test were used to analyze data (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. The highest pulling force was registered in the resin cement group (414.8 N), followed by the re-cementation group (380.5 N). Increasing the diameter improved the retention significantly (P=.006). The difference in retention between the cemented and recemented copings was not statistically significant (P=.40). CONCLUSION. Resin cement provided retention almost twice as strong as that of the RMGI. Increasing the abutment diameter improved retention significantly. Re-cementation with resin cement did not exhibit any difference from the initial cementation with resin cement.

Keywords

References

  1. Abbo B, Razzoog ME, Vivas J, Sierraalta M. Resistance to dislodgement of zirconia copings cemented onto titanium abutments of different heights. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:25-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60005-0
  2. Mish CE. Dental implant prosthetics. 2th ed., St. Louis: Elsevier Co., 2015. p. 21-2.
  3. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70203-8
  4. Chee WW, Torbati A, Albouy JP. Retrievable cemented implant restorations. J Prosthodont 1998;7:120-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.1998.tb00191.x
  5. 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.
  6. Guncu MB, Cakan U, Canay S. Comparison of 3 luting agents on retention of implant-supported crowns on 2 different abutments. Implant Dent 2011;20:349-53. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e318225f68e
  7. 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.
  8. Bresciano M, Schierano G, Manzella C, Screti A, Bignardi C, Preti G. Retention of luting agents on implant abutments of different height and taper. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16: 594-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01159.x
  9. Kim Y, Yamashita J, Shotwell JL, Chong KH, Wang HL. The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:450-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.03.020
  10. Akin H, Guney U. Effect of various surface treatments on the retention properties of titanium to implant restorative cement. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27:1183-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-011-1026-7
  11. Qeblawi DM, Munoz CA, Brewer JD, Monaco EA Jr. The effect of zirconia surface treatment on flexural strength and shear bond strength to a resin cement. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 103:210-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60033-9
  12. 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
  13. Pan YH, Lin TM, Liu PR, Ramp LC. Effect of luting agents on retention of dental implant-supported prostheses. J Oral Implantol 2015;41:596-9. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00161
  14. 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.
  15. Sahu N, Lakshmi N, Azhagarasan NS, Agnihotri Y, Rajan M, Hariharan R. Comparison of the effect of implant abutment surface modifications on retention of implant-supported restoration with a polymer based cement. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8:239-42.
  16. 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;22:569-74.
  17. Lee DH, Lee BJ, Kim SH, Lee KB. Shear bond strength of porcelain to a new millable alloy and a conventional castable alloy. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:329-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.09.016
  18. Lee JH. An accelerated technique for a ceramic-pressed-tometal restoration with CAD/CAM technology. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1021-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.015
  19. Suleiman SH, Vult von Steyern P. Fracture strength of porcelain fused to metal crowns made of cast, milled or laser-sintered cobalt-chromium. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71:1280-9. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2012.757650
  20. Kim KB, Kim JH, Kim WC, Kim JH. Three-dimensional evaluation of gaps associated with fixed dental prostheses fabricated with new technologies. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112: 1432-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.07.002
  21. Rodiger M, Rinke S, Ehret-Kleinau F, Pohlmeyer F, Lange K, Burgers R, Gersdorff N. Evaluation of removal forces of implant-supported zirconia copings depending on abutment geometry, luting agent and cleaning method during re-cementation. J Adv Prosthodont 2014;6:233-40. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.3.233
  22. Farzin M, Torabi K, Ahangari AH, Derafshi R. Effect of abutment modification and cement type on retention of cement-retained implant supported crowns. J Dent (Tehran) 2014;11:256-62.
  23. Ayad MF, Rosenstiel SF, Woelfel JB. The effect of recementation on crown retention. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:177-82.
  24. Felton DA, Kanoy BE, White JT. Recementation of dental castings with zinc phosphate cement: effect on cement bond strength. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58:579-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(87)90387-8
  25. Ayad MF, Johnston WM, Rosenstiel SF. Influence of tooth preparation taper and cement type on recementation strength of complete metal crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:354-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60192-X
  26. 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;27:36-41.
  27. Carnaggio TV, Conrad R, Engelmeier RL, Gerngross P, Paravina R, Perezous L, Powers JM. Retention of CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns on prefabricated implant abutments: an in vitro comparative study of luting agents and abutment surface area. J Prosthodont 2012;21:523-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00847.x
  28. 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
  29. Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Ebrahimi M, Savabi G. Retentiveness of implant-supported metal copings using different luting agents. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012;9:13-8. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.92921
  30. Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Jabbari E. Effect of surface treatment on the retention of implant-supported zirconia restorations over short abutments. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:38-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.026
  31. Sadig WM, Al Harbi MW. Effects of surface conditioning on the retentiveness of titanium crowns over short implant abutments. Implant Dent 2007;16:387-96. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e31815c8d7b
  32. White SN, Yu Z. Film thickness of new adhesive luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:782-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90582-U
  33. 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
  34. Pinelli LA, Fais LM, Ricci WA, Reis JM. In vitro comparisons of casting retention on implant abutments among commercially available and experimental castor oil-containing dental luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:319-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60308-X
  35. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02013.x
  36. Pan YH, Ramp LC, Lin CK, Liu PR. Comparison of 7 luting protocols and their effect on the retention and marginal leakage of a cement-retained dental implant restoration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:587-92.
  37. Rappelli G, Corso M, Coccia E, Camaioni E, Di Felice R, Procaccini M. In vitro retentive strength of metal superstructures cemented to solid abutments. Minerva Stomatol 2008; 57:95-101.
  38. Garg P, Pujari ML, Prithviraj R, Khare S. Retentiveness of various luting agents used with implant-supported prosthesis: An in vitro study. J Oral Implantol 2014;40:649-54. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00008
  39. Ebert A, Hedderich J, Kern M. Retention of zirconia ceramic copings bonded to titanium abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:921-7.

Cited by

  1. Influence of abutment height and convergence angle on the retrievability of cement-retained implant prostheses with a lingual slot vol.10, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.5.381
  2. Influence of Luting Materials on the Retention of Cemented Implant-Supported Crowns: An In Vitro Study vol.11, pp.10, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11101853
  3. Yeniden simantasyonun CAD/CAM zirkonya kuronların kısa titanyum ve zirkonya abutmentler üzerine tutunmasına etkisi vol.37, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.17214/gaziaot.621820
  4. Effect of Abutment Geometry and Luting Agents on the Vertical Marginal Discrepancy of Cast Copings on Implant Abutments: An In Vitro Study vol.2021, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9950972