Abstract
The objectives of this study were to evaluate the retention force of cemented crowns on implant abutments with different luting materials. Cobalt-chromium crowns (n=128) were randomly divided into eight groups (n=16), and a standardized mixture was cemented onto tapered titanium abutments (Camlog) with the following types of luting materials: one eugenol-free temporary cement (RelyX TempBond NE, 3M Oral Care), one composite-based temporary cement (Bifix Temp, Voco) one zinc phosphate cement (Harvard Cement; Hoffmann), two glass-ionomer cements (Meron, Voco; Fuji I, GC), and three resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (Fuji 2, GC; Fuji Plus, GC; Ketac Cem Plus, 3M Oral Care). All specimens were aged for 14 days at 37°C in artificial saliva (S1). One half of the specimens from each group (n=8) were additionally thermocycled (5.000X, 5-55°C) (S2). Then, the crowns were vertically removed using a universal testing machine at a speed of 1 mm/min, and the force was recorded (measurement time T1). Afterwards, the crowns were recemented, aged, and removed and the force was recorded (T2, T3). A linear multiple regression analysis evaluated the influence of the luting materials and aging conditions (S1, S2) on the retention force and measurement times (T 1-3). The multiple linear regression analysis exhibited a statistically significant impact of luting materials and storage condition on the retention force. The retention forces differ statistically significant in the storage condition at T1 (p = 0.002) and T3 (p = 0.0002). The aging conditions (S1, S2) had a small significant influence (p < 0.05) at T3 that was not local. After aging, S1 Ketac Cem Plus had the highest retention force difference (T3 vs. T1) (-773 N) with respect to the median value, whereas RelyX TempBond NE had the smallest difference (-126 N). After aging, S2 Meron had the highest retention force difference (-783 N), whereas the RelyX TempBond NE had the smallest difference (-168 N). Recementation of implant-supported cobalt-chromium crowns decreases the retention force independent of the luting material. A material-specific ranking of the retention force of cemented implant-supported cobalt-chromium crowns was observed at T1.
Highlights
Dental implants have a rich and fascinating history [1]
Cobalt-chromium crowns (n=128) were randomly divided into eight groups (n=16), and a standardized mixture was cemented onto tapered titanium abutments (Camlog) with the following types of luting materials: one eugenol-free temporary cement (RelyX TempBond NE, 3M Oral Care), one composite-based temporary cement (Bifix Temp, Voco) one zinc phosphate cement (Harvard Cement; Hoffmann), two glass-ionomer cements (Meron, Voco; Fuji I, GC), and three resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (Fuji 2, GC; Fuji Plus, GC; Ketac Cem Plus, 3M Oral Care)
The recementation protocol analysis at T1 showed some peculiarities for different luting materials: the highest retention forces independent of the storage conditions was found for the permanent glass-ionomer cements Meron and Fuji I, with median values of 902.30 N and 863.60 N, respectively; the lowest retention forces were found for the temporary cements eugenol-free RelyX TempBond NE and composite-based Bifix Temp, with median values of 191.70 N and 334,50 N, respectively
Summary
Dental implants have a rich and fascinating history [1]. In the last few decades, the demand for dental implantological treatment has increased steadily [2,3], and the success rates after implant insertion are high [4,5].Oral implant science has numerous topics of interest and evolving thematic trends in clinical studies [6]. Since the 2000s, the focus of dental implantological treatment has been as a biologicaldriven therapy that recovers and maintains the function, long-term stability and aesthetics of soft and hard peri-implant tissues [7,8]. For biological-driven therapy, knowledge about the factors that influence dental implant’s long-term functional stability and the safety of soft and hard peri-implant tissues has crucial clinical relevance and significance. These factors can be divided into two groups: biological or clinical and technical [9]. The biological or clinical factors are age, systemic health, bone support [10], occlusion [11], and hard and soft peri-implant tissue changes [12]. One of the actual topics of interest in the field of biological-driven implant therapy is implant restoration [8,19,20], and this topic induced the development of new methods and luting materials for implant-supported prosthesis retention [13]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
