• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.125-140
• /
• 2011

The remnant of temporary cement on the intaglio surface of cast restoration may have a negative effect on the retentive strength of permanent cement. This study was to evaluate the effect of temporary cement cleaning methods on the retentive strength of cementation type implant prostheses. Prefabricated implant abutments - height 5.5mm, diameter 4.5mm, 6 degree axial wall taper with chamfer margins were used. Forty copings-abutment specimens were divided into four groups(each n=10) according to the cleaning methods for temporary cement(Temp-$Bond^{(R)}$) as follows : no temporary cementation(the control group), orange solvent, ultrasonic cleaning, air borne-particle abrasion. After the application of temporary cement and the separation, the cleaning procedure was performed according to the protocol of each group. The specimens were cemented with $Premier^{(R)}$ Implant $Cement^{TM}$. After the permanent cementation, the specimens were subjected to thermocycling and pulled out from the specimens with a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 0.5mm/min. After the retentive strength test, all the specimens were cleaned using ultrasonic cleaning, abraded with air borne-particles, and steam-cleaned. Likewise, the specimens were temporarily cemented(Temp-$Bond^{(R)}$ NE), cleaned according to the protocol of each group, cemented with $Premier^{(R)}$ Implant $Cement^{TM}$ and subjected to thermocycling and measurement of their retentive strength. The mean of group with orange solvent were significantly lower than those of other groups(p<0.05). There was no significance between group with ultrasonic cleaning and group with air borne-particle abrasion. Group with ultrasonic cleaning and group with air-particle abrasion were no significance at control group. There was no significance between group cemented with Temp-$Bond^{(R)}$ and group cemented with Temp-$Bond^{(R)}$ NE. Within the limitation of this study, it can be concluded that the temporary cement cleaning method with only orange solvent may have a negative effect on the retentive strength of permanent cement. Ultrasonic cleaning and air borne-particle abrasion methods are recommended for the temporary cement cleaning method on cementation type implant prostheses.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.6 no.3
• /
• pp.233-240
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. To evaluate the effects of different abutment geometries in combination with varying luting agents and the effectiveness of different cleaning methods (prior to re-cementation) regarding the retentiveness of zirconia copings on implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Implants were embedded in resin blocks. Three groups of titanium abutments (pre-fabricated, height: 7.5 mm, taper: $5.7^{\circ}$; customized-long, height: 6.79 mm, taper: $4.8^{\circ}$; customized-short, height: 4.31 mm, taper: $4.8^{\circ}$) were used for luting of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia copings with a semi-permanent (Telio CS) and a provisional cement (TempBond NE). Retention forces were evaluated using a universal testing machine. Furthermore, the influence of cleaning methods (manually, manually in combination with ultrasonic bath or sandblasting) prior to re-cementation with a provisional cement (TempBond NE) was investigated with the pre-fabricated titanium abutments (height: 7.5 mm, taper: $5.7^{\circ}$) and SEM-analysis of inner surfaces of the copings was performed. Significant differences were determined via two-way ANOVA. RESULTS. Significant interactions between abutment geometry and luting agent were observed. TempBond NE showed the highest level of retentiveness on customized-long abutments, but was negatively affected by other abutment geometries. In contrast, luting with Telio CS demonstrated consistent results irrespective of the varying abutment geometries. Manual cleaning in combination with an ultrasonic bath was the only cleaning method tested prior to re-cementation that revealed retentiveness levels not inferior to primary cementation. CONCLUSION. No superiority for one of the two cements could be demonstrated because their influences on retentive strength are also depending on abutment geometry. Only manual cleaning in combination with an ultrasonic bath offers retentiveness levels after re-cementation comparable to those of primary luting.