[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit ::
:: Volume 27, Issue 2 (4-2015) ::
J Iran Dent Assoc 2015, 27(2): 109-115 Back to browse issues page
Effect of Three Types of Temporary Luting Cements and Abutment Surface Sandblasting on Retentive Strength of Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses
Shojaedin Shayegh1, Ali mohammad Salari2, Mohsen Ayoubi3, Farzan Younesi * 4
1- Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahed University. Tehran, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahed University. Tehran, Iran
3- Prosthodontist
4- Postgraduate Student, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahed University. Tehran, Iran , f.younesi@shahed.ac.ir
Abstract:   (3882 Views)

Background and Aim: Achieving appropriate retention and easy retrieva bility at the same time is challenging in implant-supported fixed par tial dentures (FPDs). Researchers have always been in search of a temporary cement to improve the retentive strength. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of three different temporary ce ments and sandblasting of the abutment surface on the retentive strength of implant- supported fixed prostheses.

Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, 10 DIO implant analogues were mounted in acrylic resin. Twenty abutments were divided into two groups of 10. The ab-utments in groupone were used in their intact standard form while those in group two were sandblasted. Sixty metal copings were fabricated and cemented on abutmentsof each group usingthree types of temporary cements namely Kerr, Provyand GC. Specimens were subjected toa universal testing machine to measure their retentive strength.The re-sults were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and pairwise comparison was performed using-Tukey’s post-hoc test.

Results: The retentive strength of TempBond (Kerr) with sandblasted abutments was sig-nificantly higher than that of the other two cements (p<0.001). In standard abutments, Provy had slightly but not significantly higher retentive strength. The lowest values in both abutment groups were obtained by GC cement.

Conclusion: Kerr TempBond cement with sandblasted abutments yields the highestreten-tive strength.

Keywords: Retention, Cement, Surface properties, Implant-supported prosthesis
Full-Text [PDF 556 kb]   (1803 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Orginal | Subject: Porosthodontics
References
1. Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Shahtoosi M. Retention of implant-supported zirconium oxide c eramic restorations using different luting agents. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Aug;24 Suppl A100: 20-4.
2. Chaar MS, Att W, Strub JR. Prosthetic outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed dental restorations; A systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2011 Sept; 38(9):697-711.
3. Guncu MB, Cakan U, Canay S. Comparsion of 3 luting agents on retention of implant-supported crowns on 2 different abutments. Implant Dent. 2011 Oct;20(5):349-53.
4. Sahu N, Lakshmi N, Azhagarasan NS, Aqnihotri Y, Rajan M, Hariharan R. Comparison of the effect of implant abutment surface modifica tions on retention of implant-supported restoration with apolymer based cement. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014 Jan;8(1):239-42.
5. Nissan J, Narobai D, Gross O, Ghelfan O, Chaushu G. Long term outcome of cemented versus screw retained implant-supported partial restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 Sept-Oct;26(5):1102-1107.
6. da Rocha PV, Freitas MA, de Morais Alves da Cunha T. Influence of screw access on the retention of cement-retained implant prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 2013 April; 109(4):264-8.
7. Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: Achieving Optimal Occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 1997 Jan; 77(1):28-35.
8. David A. Covey, Dennis K. Kent, Henry A. St. Germain Jr, Sreenivas Koka. Effects of abut-ment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2000 March; 83(3):344-8.
9. Small BW. Cemented or screw-retained implant restorations: how do you decide. Gen Dent. 2011 Jan-Feb; 59(1):14-8.
10. Lee MY, Heo SJ, Park JM. Comparative study on stress distribution around internal tapered connection implants according to fit of cement-and screw-retained prostheses. J Adv Prostho-dont. 2013 Aug;5(3):312-8.
11. Bernal G, Okamura M, Munoz CA. 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):111-115.
12. Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Ebrahimi M, Savabi G. Retentiveness of implant-supported metal coping using different luting agents. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2012 Jan-Mar;9(1):13-18.
13. Michalakis K, Pissiotis AL, Kang K, Hirayama H, Garefis PD, Petridis H. 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. 2007 Jul-Aug; 22(4):569-74.
14. Al Hamad KQ, Al Rashdan BA, Abu-sitta EH. The effects of height and surface roughness on bond strength of cement-retained implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Jun; 22 (6):638-644.
15. Cano-Batalla J, Soliva-Garriga J, Campillo-Funollete M, Munoz-Viveros CA, Giner-Tarrida L. Influence of abutment height and surface roughness on in vitro retention of three luting agents. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Jan-Feb; 27(1):36-41.
16. Kim Y, Yamashita J, Shotwell JL, Chong KH, Wang HL. The comparsion 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.
17. Ongthiemask C, Mekayarajjananonth T, Winkler S, Boberick KG. The effect of compressive cyclic loading on retention of a temporary cement used with implants. J Oral Implantol. 2005;31(3):115-20.
18. Asenza B, Scarano A, Leghissa G. Carusi G, Thams U, Roman FS, Piattell A. Screw vs ce-ment –implant-retained restorations:an experi-mental study in the beagle. part 1. Screw and abutment loosening. J Oral Implantol. 2005 Oct; 31(5):242-246.
19. Mehl C, Harder ST, Wolfart M, Kern M, Wolfart S. Retrievability of implant-retained crowns following cementation. Clin Oral Im-plants Res. 2008 Dec; 19(12):1304-11.
20. Kaar D, Oshida Y, Anderes CJ, Barco MT, Platt JA. The effect of fatigue damage on the force to remove a restoration in a cement–retained implant system. J Prosthodont. 2006 Sept-Oct; 15(5):289-94.
21. MIchalakis KX, Pissiotis AL, Hirayama H. Ce-ment failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000 Jul-Aug; 15(4):545-49.
22. Hafezeqoran A, Seyedan K, Morshedi K. Influence of abutment surface roughness on retention of implant supported crowns luted with different provisional cements. J of Islamic Dent Ass of IRAN. 2008 Summer; 20(2):171-177.
23. Ozcan M, Ffeiffer P, Nergiz I. A brief history and current status of metal/ceramic surface conditioning concepts for resin bonding in dentistry. Quintessence Int. 1998 Nov; 29(11):713-24.
24. Farzin M, Torabi K, Ahangari AH, Derafshi R. Effect of abutment modification and cement type on retention of cement-retained implant-supported crowns. J Dent (Tehran). 2014 May; 11(3):256-262.
25. Tabakhian GR, Nouri A. Effect of different temporary cements on retention of crowns cemented on one piece abutments with two dif-ferent lengths. J Mash Dent Sch. 2012 Fall; 36(3): 223-30.
26. Ga Rey DJ, Tjan AHL, James RA, Capato AA. Effects of thermo cycling, Load cycling and blood contamination on cemented-implant abutment. J Prosthet Dent. 1994 Feb; 71(2):124-132.
27. Juqdev J, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Lynch E. The effect of air abrasion of metal implant abut-ments on the tensile bond strength of three lut-ing agents used to cement implant superstruc-tures: An in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Jul-Aug:29(4):784-90.
28. Ganbarzadeh J, Nakhaei MR, Shiezadeh F. Abrisham SM. The effect of abutment surface roughness on the retention of implant-supported crowns cemented with provisional luting ce-ment. J Dent Mater Tech. 2012 Sept; 1(1):6-10.
29. De Campos TN, Adachi LK, Miashiro K, Yoshida H, Shinkai RS, Neto PT, Frigerio ML. Effect of surface topography of implant abut-ments on retention of cemented single-tooth crowns. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2010 Aug; 30(4): 409-13.
30. KimY, Yamashita J, Shotwell JL, Chong KH & Wang, HJ. 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):450-455.
31. Kurt M, Kulunk T, Ural C, Kulunk S, Danisman S, Savas S. The effect of different surface treatments on cement-retained implant-supported restorations. J Oral Implantol. 2013 Feb; 39(1):44-51.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA


XML     Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Shayegh S, Salari A M, Ayoubi M, Younesi F. Effect of Three Types of Temporary Luting Cements and Abutment Surface Sandblasting on Retentive Strength of Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses. J Iran Dent Assoc 2015; 27 (2) :109-115
URL: http://jida.ir/article-1-1746-en.html


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 27, Issue 2 (4-2015) Back to browse issues page
Journal of Iranian Dental Association

AWT IMAGE

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.04 seconds with 30 queries by YEKTAWEB 4509