Browse > Article

The Comparison of the Retention of the Full Veneer Casted Gold Crowns with Different Implant Abutment Shapes and Types of Cements  

Jung, Jae-Wook (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
Kim, Jee-hwan (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
Kim, Sun-jai (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
Moon, Hong-suk (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
Shim, June-sung (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University)
Publication Information
Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science / v.25, no.4, 2009 , pp. 403-415 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to establish the effect of different abutment shapes and types of cements on the retention of the full veneer casted gold crowns. Metal dies that has the similar shape with the implant abutment were manufactured using a short(5mm) and long(10mm) dies with different convergence angles. Metal dies and gold crowns, which were made from the metal dies, were cemented with Temp-bond, Temp-bond mixed with petroleum jelly, ZPC and Premier implant cement. After that, these were tested for tensile force at the point of separation. The effect of convergence angle changes of different cement types on the retention was studied as well as the effects of the cement type changes with different convergence angles on the retention. In addition, study about the marginal gap of Premier implant cement used for this experiment was conducted. The results are as followed under the in-vitro experimental limits; 1. The retention of the Temp-bond mixed with petroleum jelly decreased as the convergence angle increased, and the retention was weakest among the cements. 2. The retention of ZPC decreased as convergence angle increased. When convergence angle was 5 degrees, ZPC showed stronger retention than Premier implant cement. 3. Premier implant cement had the weakest retention when the convergence angle was 5 degrees but when the convergence angle was 10 degrees, it had the strongest retention. As the angle increased more than 10 degrees, the retention decreased. 4. Premier implant cement showed bigger marginal gap when the convergence angle was 5 degrees than 10 degrees under the experimental condition.
Keywords
Convergence angle; abutment length; dental implant cement; retention; tensile force; metal die;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part I: Surgical results. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:451-7   DOI   ScienceOn
2 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   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Gervais MJ, Wilson PR. A rationale for retrievability of fixed, implant-supported prostheses: a complication-based analysis. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:13-24   PUBMED
4 Kono A, Fusayama T. Casting shrinkage of one-piece-cast fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1969;22:73-83   DOI   ScienceOn
5 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
6 Taylor TD, Agar JR, Vogiatzi T. Implant prosthodontics: current perspective and future directions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15: 66-75   PUBMED
7 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   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Utz KH, Gruner M, Vothknecht R. Cervical discrepancies and closeness of marginal fit of full cast crowns in correlation with the luting agent used. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1989;44:901-4
9 Sheets JL, Wilcox C, Wilwerding T. Cement selection for cement-retained crown technique with dental implants. J Prosthodont 2008;17:92-6   DOI   ScienceOn
10 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   PUBMED
11 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   ScienceOn
12 Misch CE. Dental implant prosthetics. MOSBY 1 edit. 2005, Chap. 23
13 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   ScienceOn
14 Adell R, Eriksson B, Lekholm U, Branemark PI, Jemt T. Long-term follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:347-59   PUBMED
15 White SN, Yu Z. Film thickness of new adhesive luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:782-5   DOI   ScienceOn
16 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   ScienceOn
17 Shillingburg HT. HS, Whitsett LD. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics, ed. 2. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co. 1981:74-9
18 Kallus T, Bessing C. Loose gold screws frequently occur in full-arch fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants after 5 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:169-78   PUBMED
19 Heinemann F, Mundt T, Biffar R. Retrospective evaluation of temporary cemented, tooth and implant supported fixed partial dentures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2006;34 Suppl 2:86-90
20 Strutz JM, White SN, Yu Z, Kane CL. Luting cement-metal surface physicochemical interactions on film thickness. J Prosthet Dent 1994;72:128-32   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Jemt T, Linden B, Lekholm U. Failures and complications in 127 consecutively placed fixed partial prostheses supported by Branemark implants: from prosthetic treatment to first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:40-4   PUBMED
22 Chiche GJ, Pinault A. Considerations for fabrication of implant-supported posterior restorations. Int J Prosthodont 1991;4:37-44   PUBMED
23 Singer A, Serfaty V. Cement-retained implant- supported fixed partial dentures: a 6-month to 3-year follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11: 645-9   PUBMED
24 Ramp MH, Dixon DL, Ramp LC, Breeding LC, Barber LL. Tensile bond strengths of provisional luting agents used with an implant system. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:510-4   DOI   ScienceOn
25 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   PUBMED
26 Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Br${\aa}$nemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416   DOI   PUBMED
27 Schmitt A, Zarb GA. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants for single-tooth replacement. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:197-202   PUBMED
28 McGlumphy EA, Mendel DA, Holloway JA. Implant screw mechanics. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42: 71-89   PUBMED
29 Jorgensen KD. The relationship between retention and convergence angle in cemented veneer crowns. Acta Odontol Scand 1955;13:35-40   DOI   ScienceOn