The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

  • 제15권2호
  • /
  • Pages.63-71
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 2005-7806(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-7814(eISSN)
대한치과보철학회 (The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of hemispherical dimples at titanium implant abutments for the retention of cemented crowns

  • Jung-Hoon Choi (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Seong-Joo Heo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Jai-Young Koak (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Seong-Kyun Kim (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Ji-Man Park (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Jin-Soo Ahn (Department of Dental Biomaterials Science and Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • 투고 : 2022.05.20
  • 심사 : 2023.01.31
  • 발행 : 2023.04.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of hemispherical dimple structures on the retention of cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) crowns cemented to titanium abutments, with different heights and numbers of dimples on the axial walls. MATERIALS AND METHODS. 3.0-mm and 6.0-mm abutments (N = 180) and Co-Cr crowns were prepared. The experimental groups were divided into two and four dimple groups. The crowns were cemented by TempBond and PANAVIA F 2.0 cements. The retention forces were measured after thermal treatments. A two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Tukey HSD test were conducted to analyze change in retention forces by use of dimples between groups, as well as t test for the effect of abutment height change (α = .05). RESULTS. Results of the two-way ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference in retention force due to the use of dimples, regardless of the types of cements used (P < .001). A significantly higher mean retention forces were observed in the groups with dimples than in the control group, using the post hoc Tukey HSD test (P < .001). Results of t test displayed a statistically significant increase in the retention force with 6.0-mm abutments compared with 3.0-mm abutments (P < .001). The groups without dimples revealed adhesive failure of cements, while the groups with dimples showed mixed failure of cements. CONCLUSION. Use of hemispherical dimples was effective for increasing retention forces of cemented crowns.

키워드

과제정보

This research was supported by the Korea Medical Device Development Fund grant funded by the Korea government (the Ministry of Science and ICT, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety) (Project Number: 202011A02).

참고문헌

  1. Duong HY, Roccuzzo A, Stahli A, Salvi GE, Lang NP, Sculean A. Oral health-related quality of life of patients rehabilitated with fixed and removable implant-supported dental prostheses. Periodontol 2000 2022;88:201-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12419
  2. Ali Z, Baker SR, Shahrbaf S, Martin N, Vettore MV. Oral health-related quality of life after prosthodontic treatment for patients with partial edentulism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:59-68.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.03.003
  3. Kurosaki Y, Kimura-Ono A, Mino T, Arakawa H, Koyama E, Nakagawa S, Nguyen HTT, Osaka S, Saeki M, Minakuchi H, Ono M, Maekawa K, Kuboki T. Six-year follow-up assessment of prosthesis survival and oral health-related quality of life in individuals with partial edentulism treated with three types of prosthodontic rehabilitation. J Prosthodont Res 2021;65:332-9. https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_20_00095
  4. Schmitt A, Zarb GA. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants for single-tooth replacement. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:197-202.
  5. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4
  6. Haas R, Mensdorff-Pouilly N, Mailath G, Watzek G. Branemark single tooth implants: a preliminary report of 76 implants. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:274-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80205-7
  7. Hamed MT, Abdullah Mously H, Khalid Alamoudi S, Hossam Hashem AB, Hussein Naguib G. A systematic review of screw versus cement-retained fixed implant supported reconstructions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2020;12:9-16. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S231070
  8. Sailer I, Muhlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CH, Schneider D. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:163-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02538.x
  9. Chee W, Jivraj S. Screw versus cemented implant supported restorations. Br Dent J 2006;201:501-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4814157
  10. Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Peciuliene V. The influence of margin location on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:1379-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02119.x
  11. 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.
  12. Nematollahi F, Beyabanaki E, Alikhasi M. Cement Selection for cement-retained implant-supported prostheses: a literature review. J Prosthodont 2016;25:599-606. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12361
  13. Ma S, Fenton A. Screw- versus cement-retained implant prostheses: a systematic review of prosthodontic maintenance and complications. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28:127-45. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.3947
  14. Manawar A, Dhanasekar B, Aparna I, Naim H. Factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations: a clinical review. J Osseointegration 2012;4:43-7.
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. Muller L, Rauch A, Reissmann DR, Schierz O. Impact of cement type and abutment height on pull-off force of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate crowns on titanium implant stock abutments: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2021;21:592.
  18. 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.
  19. 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:e552-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12927
  20. Ganbarzadeh J, Nakhaei MR, Shiezadeh F, Abrisham SM. The effect of abutment surface roughness on the retention of implant-supported crowns cemented with provisional luting cement. J Dent Mater Tech 2012;1:6-10.
  21. 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.
  22. Badawi H, Aboushady Y, Azer A. Effect of circumferential and axial grooves on the retention of provisionally cement-retained implant-supported crowns (in vitro study). Alex Dent J 2015;40:208-18. https://doi.org/10.21608/adjalexu.2015.59154
  23. Lewinstein I, Block L, Lehr Z, Ormianer Z, Matalon S. An in vitro assessment of circumferential grooves on the retention of cement-retained implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:367-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60149-2
  24. Chan KC, Hormati AA, Boyer DB. Auxiliary retention for complete crowns provided by cement keys. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45:152-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(81)90332-2
  25. O'Kray H, Marshall TS, Braun TM. Supplementing retention through crown/preparation modification: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:186-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60054-7
  26. Hong JK, Kim SK, Heo SJ, Koak JY. Mechanical properties and metal-ceramic bond strength of Co-Cr alloy manufactured by selective laser melting. Materials (Basel) 2020;13:5745.
  27. Kirman EA, Asar NV, Erdem B, Turkyilmaz I. Effects of abutment length and platform size on the retention of implant-supported CAD/CAM crowns using six different cements. J Dent Sci 2022;17:601-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2021.04.013
  28. Abou-Obaid A, Al-Khudairy R. Effect of abutment height and cement thickness on the retention of cement-retained implant- supported restorations. Adv Dent & Oral Health 2018;9:555767.
  29. Ajay R, Suma K, Ali SA, Kumar Sivakumar JS, Rakshagan V, Devaki V, Divya K. Effect of surface modifications on the retention of cement-retained implant crowns under fatigue loads: an in vitro study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2017;9:S154-60. https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_146_17
  30. 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
  31. Ongthiemsak C, Mekayarajjananonth T, Winkler S, Boberick KG. The effect of compressive cyclic loading on retention of a temporary cement used with implants. J Oral Implantol 2005;31:115-20. https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2005)31[115:TEOCCL]2.0.CO;2
  32. Alvarez-Arenal A, Gonzalez-Gonzalez I, deLlanos-Lanchares H, Brizuela-Velasco A, Pines-Hueso J, Ellakuria-Echebarria J. Retention strength after compressive cyclic loading of five luting agents used in implant-supported prostheses. Biomed Res Int 2016; 2016:2107027.