Abstract
BackgroundPull-off forces of cement-retained zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) in implant-supported single crowns on stock titanium abutments with respect to abutment height and implant cement were evaluated and compared.MethodsPull-off force of ZLS crowns on stock titanium abutments was evaluated concerning dental cement and abutment height. A total sample size of 64 stock abutments with heights of 3 mm (n = 32) and 5 mm (n = 32) was used. The ZLS crowns were cemented with four different types of cement (one temporary, two semi-permanent, and one permanent). After cementation, water storage, and thermocycling each sample was subjected to a pull-off test using a universal testing machine.ResultsThe temporary cement showed the least pull-off force regardless of abutment height (3/5 mm: means 6 N/23 N), followed by the semi-permanent methacrylate-infiltrated zinc oxide cement (28 N/55 N), the semi-permanent methacrylate-based cement (103 N/163 N), and the permanent resin composite cement (238 N/820 N). Results of all types of cement differed statistically significantly from each other (p ≤ .012). The type of implant cement has an impact on the pull-off force of ZLS crowns and titanium abutments.ConclusionsPermanent cements present higher retention than semi-permanent ones, and temporary cements present the lowest values. The abutment height had a subordinate impact.
Highlights
Pull-off forces of cement-retained zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) in implant-supported single crowns on stock titanium abutments with respect to abutment height and implant cement were evaluated and compared
Samples bonded with the two strongest implant cements (PI and SpeedCEM® Plus (SCP)) showed damages of the crowns while removal in both abutment heights (PI: 12.5%; SCP: 25.0%)
A ranking of types of cement should be sought and dependence of the abutment height should be kept in mind [21]
Summary
Pull-off forces of cement-retained zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) in implant-supported single crowns on stock titanium abutments with respect to abutment height and implant cement were evaluated and compared. Implants have become a beneficial treatment, especially to replace single teeth and to restore function, esthetics, and patient satisfaction with the oral appearance. The retrievability of implant-supported single crowns (iSC) and multi-unit fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) is substantial for the maintenance of implants, complication management, and replacement of the prosthesis [4]. Regarding the survival of the implant, no clinically relevant differences were described between the rates of cementor screw-retained iSCs during the first five years. Both fixation methods can be recommended for implantsupported restorations [3]. In comparison to screw-retained crowns conventional cementation can avoid common technical complications such as screw loosening or mechanical damage of the implant components. No special devices are needed for the conventional approach and the procedures follow the same routine as for natural abutment teeth [7]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
