Influence of Luting Materials on the Retention of Cemented Implant-Supported Crowns: An In Vitro Study.

Ella Naumova,Andree Piwowarczyk,Berit Geis,Wolfgang Arnold,Christine Baulig,Felix Roth

doi:10.3390/ma11101853

Ella Naumova, Andree Piwowarczyk + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11101853

Copy DOI

Journal: Materials	Publication Date: Sep 28, 2018
Citations: 9	License type: CC BY 4.0

Affiliation: Witten/Herdecke University, Zimmer Biomet (Germany)

Abstract

The retention force of cemented crowns on implant abutments with various luting materials was evaluated. Cobalt–chromium crowns were cemented onto tapered titanium abutments (Camlog) with eugenol-free temporary cement (RelyX TempBond NE), composite-based temporary cement (Bifix Temp), zinc phosphate cement (Harvard Cement), glass-ionomer cements (Meron, Fuji I), and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (Fuji II, Fuji Plus, Ketac Cem Plus). Specimen aging via hydrostress was performed in artificial saliva at 37 °C for 14 days (S1), followed by hydrothermal stress with thermocycling (S2). The crowns were removed, and the force was recorded (T1). Subsequently, the crowns were recemented, aged, and removed, and the force was recorded (T2, T3). The retention forces differences were statistically significant according to the storage conditions at T1 (p = 0.002) and T3 (p = 0.0002). After aging (S1), Ketac Cem Plus had the highest retention force median value difference (T3 versus T1) (−773 N), whereas RelyX TempBond NE had the lowest (−146 N). After aging (S2), Meron had the highest retention force median value difference (−783 N), whereas RelyX TempBond NE had the lowest (−168 N). Recementation decreased the retention force of the implant-supported cobalt–chromium crowns cemented and recemented with the same luting materials. Luting materials (at T1) and aging conditions significantly impacted the retention force.

Highlights

Oral dental implant science encompasses numerous topics of interest and evolving thematic trends in clinical studies [1]
One of the actual topics of interest in the field of biology-driven implant therapy is implant restoration [2,18,19], and this topic has induced the development of new methods and luting materials for implant-supported prosthesis retention [11,20]
A repeated measures ANOVA with a Greenhouse–Geisser correction determined that the mean retention forces differed significantly between measurements: F (1.43, 160.44) = 2816.40, p < 0.001

Summary

Introduction

Oral dental implant science encompasses numerous topics of interest and evolving thematic trends in clinical studies [1]. Since the 2000s, the focus of dental implant treatment has been biological-driven therapy that recovers and maintains the function, long-term stability, and aesthetics of soft and hard peri-implant tissues [2,3]. Knowledge of the factors that influence the soft and hard peri-implant tissues’ long-term safety and stability has crucial clinical relevance and significance. These factors can be divided into three groups: clinical [4], biological, and technical [4,5]. One of the actual topics of interest in the field of biology-driven implant therapy is implant restoration [2,18,19], and this topic has induced the development of new methods and luting materials for implant-supported prosthesis retention [11,20]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion