Influence of abutment height and surface roughness on in vitro retention of three luting agents
- PMID: 22299076
Influence of abutment height and surface roughness on in vitro retention of three luting agents
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated the effects of abutment height, airborne-particle abrasion, and type of cement on the tensile resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained implant restorations.
Materials and methods: Three groups of 12 standardized abutments each were prepared with different heights (4 mm, 5 mm, and 6 mm) using a milling machine. Crowns were cast in cobalt-chrome using the lost-wax technique, airborne particle-abraded using 50-Μm aluminum oxide, and cleaned with acetone. Restorations were cemented using a noneugenol acrylic urethane cement, a resin-modified glass ionomer, or a zinc oxide-noneugenol cement. A 5-kg load was applied for 10 minutes. Samples were kept at 37°C and 100% humidity overnight. A tensile force was applied to the crown using a testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/minute until failure occurred. Next, the abutments were airborne particle-abraded with 50-Μm aluminum oxide, and the cementation and testing procedures were repeated. The effects of cement, abutment height, and surface treatment were evaluated statistically.
Results: There were significant differences among the cements. The resin-modified glass ionomer provided the greatest retention in all the tested conditions, while the zinc oxide-noneugenol cement produced the lowest retention values. Significant differences were also detected between 4-mm and 6-mm abutments, with the 6-mm abutments being more retentive. No differences were found between 4-mm and 5-mm abutments or between 5-mm and 6-mm abutments. The effect of airborne-particle abrasion was also found to be significant. A maximum increase of 90 N in retention force was observed after airborne-particle abrasion for the 5-mm abutments cemented with the acrylic urethane cement.
Conclusions: Cement, airborne-particle abrasion, and abutment height can significantly influence retention of implant-supported crowns. Different parameters, including those specific to the patient, should be considered in the selection of a luting agent.
Similar articles
-
The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns.J Prosthet Dent. 2006 Jun;95(6):450-5. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.03.020. J Prosthet Dent. 2006. PMID: 16765158
-
The effects of abutment taper, length and cement type on resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations.J Prosthodont. 2003 Jun;12(2):111-5. doi: 10.1016/S1059-941X(03)00006-8. J Prosthodont. 2003. PMID: 12964683
-
Retention of CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns on prefabricated implant abutments: an in vitro comparative study of luting agents and abutment surface area.J Prosthodont. 2012 Oct;21(7):523-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00847.x. Epub 2012 Apr 1. J Prosthodont. 2012. PMID: 22469271
-
Tensile strength of cementing agents on the CeraOne system of dental prosthesis on implants.Implant Dent. 2008 Dec;17(4):451-60. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e31818c4947. Implant Dent. 2008. PMID: 19077583 Review.
-
What is the Best Available Luting Agent for Implant Prosthesis?Dent Clin North Am. 2019 Jul;63(3):531-545. doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2019.02.014. Epub 2019 Apr 15. Dent Clin North Am. 2019. PMID: 31097143 Review.
Cited by
-
The selection criteria of temporary or permanent luting agents in implant-supported prostheses: in vitro study.J Adv Prosthodont. 2016 Apr;8(2):144-9. doi: 10.4047/jap.2016.8.2.144. Epub 2016 Apr 21. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016. PMID: 27141259 Free PMC article.
-
Retention Strength after Compressive Cyclic Loading of Five Luting Agents Used in Implant-Supported Prostheses.Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:2107027. doi: 10.1155/2016/2107027. Epub 2016 Oct 16. Biomed Res Int. 2016. PMID: 27822468 Free PMC article.
-
Geometry of Implant Abutment Surface Improving Cement Effectiveness: An In vitro Study.J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021 Nov;13(Suppl 2):S1093-S1097. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_176_21. Epub 2021 Nov 10. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021. PMID: 35017936 Free PMC article.
-
Marginal Discrepancy of Cast Copings to Abutments with Three Different Luting Agents.Int J Dent. 2019 Sep 2;2019:8657582. doi: 10.1155/2019/8657582. eCollection 2019. Int J Dent. 2019. PMID: 31565057 Free PMC article.
-
Effect of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength of luting cements used with implant-supported prosthesis: An in vitro study.J Adv Prosthodont. 2020 Apr;12(2):75-82. doi: 10.4047/jap.2020.12.2.75. Epub 2020 Apr 22. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020. PMID: 32377320 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Miscellaneous