The selection criteria of temporary or permanent luting agents in implant-supported prostheses: in vitro study
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
PURPOSE. The use of temporary or permanent cements in fixed implant-supported prostheses is under discussion. The objective was to compare the retentiveness of one temporary and two permanent cements after cyclic compressive loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The working model was five solid abutments screwed to five implant analogs. Thirty Cr-Ni alloy copings were randomized and cemented to the abutments with one temporary (resin urethane-based) or two permanent (resin-modified glass ionomer, resin-composite) cements. The retention strength was measured twice: once after the copings were cemented and again after a compressive cyclic loading of 100 N at 0.72 Hz (100,000 cycles). RESULTS. Before loading, the retention strength of resin composite was 75% higher than the resin-modified glass ionomer and 2.5 times higher than resin urethane-based cement. After loading, the retentiveness of the three cements decreased in a non-uniform manner. The greatest percentage of retention loss was shown by the temporary cement and the lowest by the permanent resin composite. However, the two permanent cements consistently show high retention values. CONCLUSION. The higher the initial retention of each cement, the lower the percentage of retention loss after compressive cyclic loading. After loading, the resin urethane-based cement was the most favourable cement for retrieving the crowns and resin composite was the most favourable cement to keep them in place. [J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8:144-9]
Abstract
PURPOSE. The use of temporary or permanent cements in fixed implant-supported prostheses is under discussion. The objective was to compare the retentiveness of one temporary and two permanent cements after cyclic compressive loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The working model was five solid abutments screwed to five implant analogs. Thirty Cr-Ni alloy copings were randomized and cemented to the abutments with one temporary (resin urethane-based) or two permanent (resin-modified glass ionomer, resin-composite) cements. The retention strength was measured twice: once after the copings were cemented and again after a compressive cyclic loading of 100 N at 0.72 Hz (100,000 cycles). RESULTS. Before loading, the retention strength of resin composite was 75% higher than the resin-modified glass ionomer and 2.5 times higher than resin urethane-based cement. After loading, the retentiveness of the three cements decreased in a non-uniform manner. The greatest percentage of retention loss was shown by the temporary cement and the lowest by the permanent resin composite. However, the two permanent cements consistently show high retention values. CONCLUSION. The higher the initial retention of each cement, the lower the percentage of retention loss after compressive cyclic loading. After loading, the resin urethane-based cement was the most favourable cement for retrieving the crowns and resin composite was the most favourable cement to keep them in place. [J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8:144-9]
참고문헌 (32)
- Sailer I, "Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions:a systematic review of the survival and complication rates", Clin Oral Implants Res, 23, pp.163~201 (2012)
- Nissan J, "Longterm outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implantsupported partial restorations", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 26, pp.1102~1107 (2011)
- Vigolo P, "Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 4-year prospective clinical study", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 19, pp.260~265 (2004)
- Michalakis KX, "Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 18, pp.719~728 (2003)
- Shadid R, "A comparison between screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. A literature review", J OralImplantol, 38, pp.298~307 (2012)
- Chaar MS, "Prosthetic outcome of cementretained implant-supported fixed dental restorations: a systematic review", J Oral Rehabil, 38, pp.697~711 (2011)
- Kent DK, "Retention of cemented implant-supported restorations", J Prosthodont, 6, pp.193~196 (1997)
- Covey DA, "Effects of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns", J Prosthet Dent, 83, pp.344~348 (2000)
- Proussaefs P, "Crowns cemented on crown preparations lacking geometric resistance form. Part II: effect of cement", J Prosthodont, 13, pp.36~41 (2004)
- Michalakis K, "The effect of thermal cycling and air abrasion on cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 22, pp.569~574 (2007)
- Chandra Shekar S, "An in vitro study to evaluate the retention of complete crowns prepared with five different tapers and luted with two different cements", J Indian Prosthodont Soc, 10, pp.89~95 (2010)
- Sheets JL, "Cement selection for cement-retained crown technique with dental implants", J Prosthodont, 17, pp.92~96 (2008)
- Maeyama H, "Retentive strength of metal copings on prefabricated abutments with five different cements", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 7, pp.229~234 (2005)
- Garg P, "Retentiveness of various luting agents used with implant-supported prostheses:a preliminary in vitro study", Int J Prosthodont, 26, pp.82~84 (2013)
- Squier RS, "Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components", J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 16, pp.793~798 (2001)
- Cano-Batalla J, "Influence of abutment height and surface roughness on in vitro retention of three luting agents", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 27, pp.36~41 (2012)
- Mansour A, "Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements", Clin Oral Implants Res, 13, pp.343~348 (2002)
- Michalakis KX, "Cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 15, pp.545~549 (2000)
- Dudley JE, "Retention of cast crown copings cemented to implant abutments", Aust Dent J, 53, pp.332~339 (2008)
- Pan YH, "Retention and leakage of implant-supported restorations luted with provisional cement:a pilot study", J Oral Rehabil, 34, pp.206~212 (2007)
- Pan YH, "Comparison of 7 luting protocols and their effect on the retention and marginal leakage of a cement-retained dental implant restoration", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 21, pp.587~592 (2006)
- Kaar D, "The effect of fatigue damage on the force required to remove a restoration in a cement-retained implant system", J Prosthodont, 15, pp.289~294 (2006)
- Bresciano M, "Retention of luting agents on implant abutments of different height and taper", Clin Oral Implants Res, 16, pp.594~598 (2005)
- Bernal G, "The effects of abutment taper, length and cement type on resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations", J Prosthodont, 12, pp.111~115 (2003)
- Akashia AE, "Effects of different types of temporary cements on the tensile strength and marginal adaptation of crowns on implants", J Adhes Dent, 4, pp.309~315 (2002)
- Alfaro MA, "Short-term retention properties of cements for retrievable implant-supported prostheses", Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent, 12, pp.33~37 (2004)
- Clayton GH, "The effect of luting agents on the retention and marginal adaptation of the CeraOne implant system", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 12, pp.660~665 (1997)
- Wolfart M, "Retention forces and seating discrepancies of implant-retained castings after cementation", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 21, pp.519~525 (2006)
- Nejatidanesh F, "Retentiveness of implant-supported metal copings using different luting agents", Dent Res J (Isfahan), 9, pp.13~18 (2012)
- Ongthiemsak C, "The effect of compressive cyclic loading on retention of a temporary cement used with implants", J Oral Implantol, 31, pp.115~120 (2005)
- Koolstra JH, "Prediction of volumetric strain in the human temporomandibular joint cartilage during jaw movement", J Anat, 209, pp.369~380 (2006)
- Hallgren C, "Histomorphometric and mechanical evaluation of the bonetissue response to implants prepared with different orientation of surface topography", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 3, pp.194~203 (2001)