Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.2.144

The selection criteria of temporary or permanent luting agents in implant-supported prostheses: in vitro study  

Alvarez-Arenal, Angel (Department of Prosthodontics and Occlusion, School of Dentistry, University of Oviedo)
Gonzalez-Gonzalez, Ignacio (Department of Prosthodontics and Occlusion, School of Dentistry, University of Oviedo)
deLlanos-Lanchares, Hector (Department of Prosthodontics and Occlusion, School of Dentistry, University of Oviedo)
Brizuela-Velasco, Aritza (Department of Oral Stomatology I, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Basque Country)
Ellacuria-Echebarria, Joseba (Department of Oral Stomatology I, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Basque Country)
Publication Information
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics / v.8, no.2, 2016 , pp. 144-149 More about this Journal
Abstract
PURPOSE. The use of temporary or permanent cements in fixed implant-supported prostheses is under discussion. The objective was to compare the retentiveness of one temporary and two permanent cements after cyclic compressive loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The working model was five solid abutments screwed to five implant analogs. Thirty Cr-Ni alloy copings were randomized and cemented to the abutments with one temporary (resin urethane-based) or two permanent (resin-modified glass ionomer, resin-composite) cements. The retention strength was measured twice: once after the copings were cemented and again after a compressive cyclic loading of 100 N at 0.72 Hz (100,000 cycles). RESULTS. Before loading, the retention strength of resin composite was 75% higher than the resin-modified glass ionomer and 2.5 times higher than resin urethane-based cement. After loading, the retentiveness of the three cements decreased in a non-uniform manner. The greatest percentage of retention loss was shown by the temporary cement and the lowest by the permanent resin composite. However, the two permanent cements consistently show high retention values. CONCLUSION. The higher the initial retention of each cement, the lower the percentage of retention loss after compressive cyclic loading. After loading, the resin urethane-based cement was the most favourable cement for retrieving the crowns and resin composite was the most favourable cement to keep them in place.
Keywords
Cements; Cyclic compressive load; Fixed prosthesis; Implants;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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.   DOI
2 Nissan J, Narobai D, Gross O, Ghelfan O, Chaushu G. Longterm outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implantsupported partial restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:1102-7.
3 Vigolo P, Givani A, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 4-year prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:260-5.
4 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.
5 Shadid R, Sadaqa N. A comparison between screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. A literature review. J Oral Implantol 2012;38:298-307.   DOI
6 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.   DOI
7 Kent DK, Koka S, Froeschle ML. Retention of cemented implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont 1997;6:193-6.   DOI
8 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.   DOI
9 Proussaefs P. Crowns cemented on crown preparations lacking geometric resistance form. Part II: effect of cement. J Prosthodont 2004;13:36-41.   DOI
10 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.
11 Chandra Shekar S, Giridhar K, Suhas Rao K. An in vitro study to evaluate the retention of complete crowns prepared with five different tapers and luted with two different cements. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2010;10:89-95.   DOI
12 Sheets JL, Wilcox C, Wilwerding T. Cement selection for cement-retained crown technique with dental implants. J Prosthodont 2008;17:92-6.   DOI
13 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.   DOI
14 Garg P, Gupta G, Prithviraj DR, Pujari M. Retentiveness of various luting agents used with implant-supported prostheses: a preliminary in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26: 82-4.   DOI
15 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.
16 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.
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.   DOI
18 Pan YH, Ramp LC, Lin CK, Liu PR. Retention and leakage of implant-supported restorations luted with provisional cement: a pilot study. J Oral Rehabil 2007;34:206-12.   DOI
19 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.
20 Dudley JE, Richards LC, Abbott JR. Retention of cast crown copings cemented to implant abutments. Aust Dent J 2008; 53:332-9.   DOI
21 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.
22 Kaar D, Oshida Y, Andres CJ, Barco MT, Platt JA. The effect of fatigue damage on the force required to remove a restoration in a cement-retained implant system. J Prosthodont 2006;15:289-94.   DOI
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.   DOI
24 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.   DOI
25 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.
26 Alfaro MA, Papazoglou E, McGlumphy EA, Holloway JA. Short-term retention properties of cements for retrievable implant-supported prostheses. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2004;12:33-7.
27 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.   DOI
28 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.
29 Wolfart M, Wolfart S, Kern M. Retention forces and seating discrepancies of implant-retained castings after cementation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:519-25.
30 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.   DOI
31 Koolstra JH, van Eijden TM. Prediction of volumetric strain in the human temporomandibular joint cartilage during jaw movement. J Anat 2006;209:369-80.   DOI
32 Hallgren C, Sawase T, Ortengren U, Wennerberg A. Histomorphometric and mechanical evaluation of the bonetissue response to implants prepared with different orientation of surface topography. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2001;3:194-203.   DOI