Journal of Korean Dental Science

Korean Academy of Dental Science (대한치의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Impact on Retrievability by Cement Variety for Implant Restorations Equipped with a Lingual Slot

  • Lee, Ji-Hong (Department of Dentistry, Graduate School, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Kyu-Bok (Department of Dentistry, Graduate School, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2018.03.21
  • Accepted : 2018.06.25
  • Published : 2018.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to measure and compare the removal torques of different cements applied in attachments of zirconia restorations on titanium (Ti) abutments fitted with retrievable cement-type slot (RCS) on the lingual side for the better retrievablity by use of a slot driver. Materials and Methods: Three types of cements were used in the experiment: two permanent cements in $RelyX^{TM}$ U200 (RU) (3M ESPE) which is a resin cement and $FujiCem^{TM}$ (FC) (GC) which is a resin-modified glass ionomer cement, and a temporary cement in $Freegenol^{TM}$ temporary cement (TC) (GC). Measurements of removal torques were conducted as follows; an attached sample was fixed on the equipment customized for the experiment; a slot driver was connected to a MGT12 (Mark-10 Corp.), a torque measurement instrument; the sample had the driver fitted to its RCS and then was rotated until the it was removed; and finally, the maximum torque value was recorded. Result: As for the removal torque measurement results, the average values were $47.9{\pm}2.6Ncm$ for RU, $43.4{\pm}1.5Ncm$ for FC, and $20.9{\pm}1.0Ncm$ for TC. The statistical analysis using Kruskal-Wallis test yielded the significance probability of P<0.05 (P=0.002), which confirmed the presence of significant differences between the three groups. Conclusion: All three cements exhibit clinically acceptable levels of removal torque when applied to an upper zirconia implant restoration fitted with a lingual slot, with RU and FC, the two permanent cements, having the significantly higher values than that of TC, the temporary cement.

Keywords

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70203-8
  2. Taylor TD, Agar JR. Twenty years of progress in implant prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88: 89-95. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.126818
  3. Chaar MS, Att W, Strub JR. Prosthetic outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed dental restorations: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2011; 38: 697-711. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02209.x
  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. Clausen GF. The lingual locking screw for implantretained restorations--aesthetics and retrievability. Aust Prosthodont J. 1995; 9: 17-20.
  6. Buzayan MM, Mahmood WA, Yunus NB. A simple procedure for retrieval of a cement-retained implant-supported crown: a case report. Quintessence Int. 2014; 45: 125-8.
  7. Schoenbaum TR, Chang YY, Klokkevold PR. Screw-access marking: a technique to simplify retrieval of cement-retained implant prostheses. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2013; 34: 230-6.
  8. Schweitzer DM, Berg RW, Mancia GO. A technique for retrieval of cement-retained implantsupported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2011; 106: 134-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60110-8
  9. 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
  10. Valbao FP Jr, Perez EG, Breda M. Alternative method for retention and removal of cement-retained implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 86: 181-3. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.115687
  11. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01587.x
  12. Taylor TD, Agar JR, Vogiatzi T. Implant prosthodontics: current perspective and future directions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15: 66-75.
  13. 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.
  14. GaRey DJ, Tjan AH, James RA, Caputo AA. Effects of thermocycling, load-cycling, and blood contamination on cemented implant abutments. J Prosthet Dent. 1994; 71: 124-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90019-1
  15. Lim HP, Yoo JM, Park SW, Yang HS. Fracture load of implant-supported zirconia all-ceramic crowns luted with various cements. Int J Prosthodont. 2010; 23: 361-3.
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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: 229-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00068.x
  19. Hallgren C, Sawase T, Ortengren U, Wennerberg A. Histomorphometric and mechanical evaluation of the bone-tissue response to implants prepared with different orientation of surface topography. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2001; 3: 194-203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00141.x
  20. Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Shahtoosi M. Retention of implant-supported zirconium oxide ceramic restorations using different luting agents. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24 Suppl A100: 20-4.
  21. Montenegro AC, Machado AN, Depes Gouvea CV. Tensile strength of cementing agents on the CeraOne system of dental prosthesis on implants. Implant Dent. 2008; 17: 451-60. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e31818c4947