The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Influence of abutment height and convergence angle on the retrievability of cement-retained implant prostheses with a lingual slot

  • Choi, Kyu-Hyung (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Son, KeunBaDa (Department of Dental Science, Graduate School, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Du-Hyeong (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Kyu-Bok (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2018.03.12
  • Accepted : 2018.08.22
  • Published : 2018.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. Cement-retained implant prostheses can lack proper retrievability during repair, and residual cement can cause peri-implantitis. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of abutment height and convergence angle on the retrievability of cement-retained implant prostheses with lingual slots, known as retrievable cement-type slots (RCS). MATERIALS AND METHODS. We fabricated six types of titanium abutments (10 of each type) with two different heights (4 mm and 6 mm), three different convergence angles ($8^{\circ}$, $10^{\circ}$, and $12^{\circ}$), a sloped shoulder margin (0.6 mm depth), a rectangular shape ($6mm{\times}6.5mm$) with rounded edges, and a rectangular ledge ($2mm{\times}1mm$) for the RCS. One monolithic zirconia crown was fabricated for each abutment using a dental computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing system. The abutments and crowns were permanently cemented together with dual-curing resin cement, followed by 24 hours in demineralized water at room temperature. Using a custom-made device with a slot driver and torque gauge, we recorded the torque ($N{\cdot}cm$) required to remove the crowns. Statistical analysis was conducted using multiple regression analysis and Mann-Whitney U tests (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. Removal torques significantly decreased as convergence angles increased. Multiple regression analysis showed no significant interaction between the abutment height and the convergence angle (Durbin-Watson ratio: 2.186). CONCLUSION. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, we suggest that the retrievability of cement-retained implant prostheses with RCS can be maintained by adjusting the abutment height and convergence angle, even when they are permanently cemented together.

Keywords

References

  1. Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby Inc; 1999. p. 549-93.
  2. Misch CE. Screw-retained versus cement-retained implant supported prostheses. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1995; 7:15-8.
  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 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.
  5. Ekfeldt A, Carlsson GE, Börjesson G. Clinical evaluation of single-tooth restorations supported by osseointegrated implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:179-83.
  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. 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
  8. Clausen GF. The lingual locking screw for implant-retained restorations--aesthetics and retrievability. Aust Prosthodont J 1995;9:17-20.
  9. Doerr J. Simplified technique for retrieving cemented implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:352-3. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.128149
  10. Daher T, Morgano SM. The use of digital photographs to locate implant abutment screws for implant-supported cement-retained restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:238-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60187-0
  11. Wadhwani C, Chung KH. Simple device for locating the abut- ment screw position of a cement-retained implant restoration. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:272-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60058-X
  12. Prestipino V, Ingber A, Kravitz J, Whitehead GM. A practical approach for retrieving cement-retained, implant-supported restorations. Quintessence Dent Technol 2001;24:182-7.
  13. Schweitzer DM, Berg RW, Mancia GO. A technique for retrieval of cement-retained implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:134-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60110-8
  14. Elshiyab SH, Nawafleh N, Öchsner A, George R. Fracture resistance of implant-supported monolithic crowns cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments: zirconia-based crowns vs. lithium disilicate crowns. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10:65-72. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.1.65
  15. Rödiger M, Rinke S, Ehret-Kleinau F, Pohlmeyer F, Lange K, Bürgers 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
  16. Mehl C, Harder S, Shahriari A, Steiner M, Kern M. Influence of abutment height and thermocycling on retrievability of cemented implant-supported crowns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1106-15.
  17. Mehl C, Harder S, Schwarz D, Steiner M, Vollrath O, Kern M. In vitro influence of ultrasonic stress, removal force preload and thermocycling on the retrievability of implant-retained crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:930-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02236.x
  18. Pintinha M, Camarini ET, Sábio S, Pereira JR. Effect of mechanical loading on the removal torque of different types of tapered connection abutments for dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 2013;110:383-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.06.007
  19. Mehl C, Harder S, Steiner M, Vollrath O, Kern M. Influence of cement film thickness on the retention of implant-retained crowns. J Prosthodont 2013;22:618-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12058
  20. Abbo B, Razzoog ME, Vivas J, Sierraalta M. Resistance to dis- lodgement of zirconia copings cemented onto titanium abut- ments of different heights. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:25-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60005-0
  21. 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;10:1-7. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.1.1
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Heinemann F, Mundt T, Biffar R. Retrospective evaluation of temporary cemented, tooth and implant supported fixed partial dentures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2006;34:86-90.
  26. 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.
  27. Arrais CA, Giannini M, Rueggeberg FA, Pashley DH. Microtensile bond strength of dual-polymerizing cementing systems to dentin using different polymerizing modes. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:99-106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.12.007
  28. Lührs AK, De Munck J, Geurtsen W, Van Meerbeek B. Composite cements benefit from light-curing. Dent Mater 2014;30:292-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.11.012
  29. Youm SH, Jung KH, Son SA, Kwon YH, Park JK. Effect of dentin pretreatment and curing mode on the microtensile bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements. J Adv Prosthodont 2015;7:317-22. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.4.317
  30. Pan YH, Lin CK. The effect of luting agents on the retention of dental implant-supported crowns. Chang Gung Med J 2005;28:403-10.
  31. Harder S, Dimaczek B, Açil Y, Terheyden H, Freitag-Wolf S, Kern M. Molecular leakage at implant-abutment connection--in vitro investigation of tightness of internal conical implant-abutment connections against endotoxin penetration. Clin Oral Investig 2010;14:427-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0317-x
  32. Chaar MS, Att W, Strub JR. Prosthetic outcome of cementretained 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

Cited by

  1. In Vitro Simulation of Dental Implant Bridges Removal: Influence of Luting Agent and Abutments Geometry on Retrievability vol.13, pp.12, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13122797
  2. Analysis of the fit quality of the metal frames on implants depending on the abutment taper vol.100, pp.6, 2021, https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat202110006156
  3. 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