A comparison of retentive strength of implant cement depending on various methods of removing provisional cement from implant abutment

Abstract

PURPOSEThis study evaluated the effectiveness of various methods for removing provisional cement from implant abutments, and what effect these methods have on the retention of prosthesis during the definitive cementation.MATERIALS AND METHODSForty implant fixture analogues and abutments were embedded in resin blocks. Forty cast crowns were fabricated and divided into 4 groups each containing 10 implants. Group A was cemented directly with the definitive cement (Cem-Implant). The remainder were cemented with provisional cement (Temp-Bond NE), and classified according to the method for cleaning the abutments. Group B used a plastic curette and wet gauze, Group C used a rubber cup and pumice, and Group D used an airborne particle abrasion technique. The abutments were observed using a stereomicroscope after removing the provisional cement. The tensile bond strength was measured after the definitive cementation. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance test (α=.05).RESULTSGroup B clearly showed provisional cement remaining, whereas the other groups showed almost no cement. Groups A and B showed a relatively smooth surface. More roughness was observed in Group C, and apparent roughness was noted in Group D. The tensile bond strength tests revealed Group D to have significantly the highest tensile bond strength followed in order by Groups C, A and B.CONCLUSIONA plastic curette and wet gauze alone cannot effectively remove the residual provisional cement on the abutment. The definitive retention increased when the abutments were treated with rubber cup/pumice or airborne particle abraded to remove the provisional cement.

Evaluation of removal forces of implant-supported zirconia copings depending on abutment geometry, luting agent and cleaning method during re-cementation

“…6B) there are a lot of cement remnants that possibly inhibited mechanic friction. This is consistent to the results of a study investigating the influence of implant abutment cleaning techniques on retentive strength of zirconia copings 26. The sandblasted copings showed the most homogenous surfaces free of cement's remnants (Fig.…”

“…The sandblasted copings showed the most homogenous surfaces free of cement's remnants (Fig. 6D), as it was also demonstrated for the cleaning of implant abutments 26. However, sandblasting prior to re-cementation (retentive strength: 61.82 N) leads to values that were better than after manual cleaning but also significantly inferior to those of the reference series.…”

“…This is consistent to the results of a study investigating the influence of implant abutment cleaning techniques on retentive strength of zirconia copings. 26 The sandblasted copings showed the most homogenous surfaces free of cement's remnants ( Fig. 6D ), as it was also demonstrated for the cleaning of implant abutments.…”

“…Etching, burnout or manual cleaning (we think clinically the most common technique) with curettes or similar instruments are other known methods for removing provisional cement before re-cementing of the copings. But to the author's knowledge, there is only one study available that evaluates the effect of different cleaning methods on retentiveness of temporarily cemented casted (no zirconia) copings after re-cementation but for cleaning of the abutments, not the inner surface of the copings; and in that study, airborne particle abrasion was the most effective technique 26. Furthermore, sandblasting of zirconia copings is seen critically regarding the influence of the mechanical integrity of the copings by some authors,27,28 so that it is still unclear what cleaning method could be truly recommended for debonded temporarily cemented zirconia copings.…”

Evaluation of retention of two implant supported ceramic crowns using two temporary cements

“…In our study, uni-axial tensile force test was selected, to give a better simulation to the clinical environment, similar to a previous study done by Eun-Cheol Shin et al 9 , where they evaluated retention forces using metalic copings cemented using provisional cements over implant abutments.…”