Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Feb 14:20:22.
doi: 10.4103/1735-3327.369624. eCollection 2023.

The effect of different methods of cleansing temporary cement (with and without eugenol) on the final bond strength of implant-supported zirconia copings after final cementation: An in vitro study

Farshad Bajoghli  1 , Amirhossein Fathi  2 , Behnaz Ebadian  1 , Mohammad Jowkar  3 , Mahmoud Sabouhi  2
Affiliations

The effect of different methods of cleansing temporary cement (with and without eugenol) on the final bond strength of implant-supported zirconia copings after final cementation: An in vitro study

Farshad Bajoghli et al. Dent Res J (Isfahan). .

Abstract

Background: The temporary cement remaining inside the dental prosthesis can act as a source of microbial colonization and contamination and decrease the final cement retention. Consequently, complete removal of temporary cement before permanent cementation is suggested. This study aimed to assess the effect of different cleaning methods for removing temporary cement on the tensile bond force (TBF) of permanently cemented implant-supported zirconia copings.

Materials and methods: In this in vitro study fifty titanium abutments were screwed onto 50 analogs with 30 Ncm torque into in acrylic resin blocks. Each abutment was scanned separately, and 50 zirconia copings were designed and milled. Permanent resin cement was used to cement copings of control group (N = 10). Copings were divided into two temporary cementation types that in each group, two cleansing methods were used: Temp-S (temporary cement with eugenol and sandblasted after debonding), Samples of the control group were placed in the universal testing machine, and the TBF values were recorded. Samples of the test groups after debonding and cleaning the abutments were subjected to cement with permanent resin cement, aging, and removing. Levene test, two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Tamhane post hoc tests were applied. α = 0.05.

Results: The highest and lowest TBF values were found for the TempNE-SU (554.7 ± 31.5 N) and Temp-S (492.2 ± 48 N) groups, respectively. The two groups of isopropyl alcohol baths in ultrasonics in combination with sandblasting showed statistically higher TBF values than the other two groups that used only sandblasting (P < 0.001) and had similar values compared to the control group.

Conclusion: Sandblasting combined with immersion in an ultrasonic bath containing isopropyl alcohol resulted in statistically similar values to the values of cementation with resin cement from the beginning. However, cleaning the inside of the copings only by sandblasting method reduced the values of the final retention force in comparison to cement with permanent resin cement from the beginning.

Keywords: Cleaning methods; permanently cemented implant; temporary cement removal; tensile bond force; zirconia.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors of this manuscript declare that they have no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, financial or nonfinancial in this article.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Song MY, An H, Park EJ. The effect of temporary cement cleaning methods on the retention of crowns. J Prosthodont. 2019;28:e210–5. - PubMed
    1. Raikar S, Talukdar P, Kumari S, Panda SK, Oommen VM, Prasad A. Factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants: A retrospective study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2017;7:351–5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zanetti EM, Pascoletti G, Calì M, Bignardi C, Franceschini G. Clinical assessment of dental implant stability during follow-up: What is actually measured, and perspectives. Biosensors (Basel) 2018;8:68. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wittneben JG, Joda T, Weber HP, Brägger U. Screw retained versus cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Periodontol 2000. 2017;73:141–51. - PubMed
    1. Kim DD, Ghali GE. Dental implants in oral cancer reconstruction. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2011;23:337–45. vii. - PubMed