Effect of surface roughness and cement space on crown retention

Juntavee, Niwut; Millstein, Philip L.

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(92)90415-7

Cited by 45 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Juntavee and Millstein, 39 in a study which investigated the effect of surface roughness and cement space on crown retention, found a cement space of 150 m between core and retainer was significantly less retentive than a cement space of 50 m or 100 m. This study used an open-ended retainer design, a push-out test as a measure of retention and a decrease in die diameter to produce an increase in cement space. These features do not reflect the typically seen crown/die complex and a large decrease in die diameter may have a significant influence on retention values by decreasing surface area.…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

The effects of die‐Spacidng on post‐cementation crown elevation and retention

Carter¹,

Wilson

1997

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reviews the relevant dental literature concerning the effect of die-spacing on crown elevation and pre-and post-cementation crown retention. Techniques of providing die-spacing and measurement of the thickness of die-spacer are discussed. A review of the role of the provision of a cement space in reducing post-cementation crown elevation is presented. Factors which may affect crown retention prior to and following cementation are also reviewed. The influence of variables in techniques and experimental design on the results of the studies reviewed is discussed.Key words: Die-spacing, crown elevation, pre-cementation retention, post-cementation retention.(Received for publication January 1996. Revised March 1996 Accepted April 1996.) IntroductionFull crowns frequently do not seat with minimal m a r ginal discrepancy following cementat i o n .

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 90%

The effects of die‐Spacidng on post‐cementation crown elevation and retention

Carter¹,

Wilson

1997

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other authors reported that the retention values of cements increased with increasing surface roughness of the restoration or abutment 14-18…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

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

Keum

Shin

2013

J Adv Prosthodont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…9,[19][20][21][22] The impact of the production method has been addressed, suggesting that the surface roughness of Co-Cr crowns differs depending on production technique. 8 Most studies suggest advantages for restorations produced by laser-sintering, but not all agree.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of production method on surface roughness, marginal and internal fit, and retention of cobalt-chromium single crowns

Lövgren

Roxner

Klemendz

et al. 2017

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is an author produced version of a paper published in Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. This paper has been peer-reviewed but does not include the final publisher proof-corrections or journal pagination.Citation for the published paper:Lövgren, Niklas; Roxner, Rikard; Klemendz, Susanne; Larsson, Christel.(2017). Effect of production method on surface roughness, marginal and internal fit, and retention of cobalt-chromium single crowns. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to examine 3 different production methods with regard to surface roughness, marginal and internal fit, and the retention of cobalt-chromium alloy single crown copings. Material and methods.A master abutment of a premolar mandibular tooth preparation with 4-mm height and a 0.6-mm deep 120-degree chamfer finish line with a 12-degree angle of convergence was replicated in die stone and scanned. Thirty-six cobalt-chromium alloy copings were produced using 3 different production techniques. Twelve copings were produced by lasersintering (LS), 12 by milling (M), and 12 by milled wax/lost wax (MLW). The surface microstructure of 2 copings in each group was analyzed using interferometry. The remaining 10 copings in each group were used to evaluate marginal and internal fit by using an impression material replica method, and retention was evaluated by using a uniaxial tensile force pull-off test. The copings from each test group (MLW, M, and LS) were cemented with zinc phosphate cement onto resin abutments. Statistical analyses of differences in marginal and internal fit were performed using one-way ANOVA and the Mann-Whitney test. Differences in surface topography were analyzed with the Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests for nonparametric Conclusions. Laser-sintered Co-Cr crown copings showed increased surface roughness and better internal and marginal fit than copings produced by milling or the milled wax/lost wax technique. However, the crown pull-off tests did not reveal any significant differences. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONSCobalt-chromium alloy copings produced by laser-sintering may reduce the risk of complications due to increased surface roughness and improved fit.

show abstract

Effect of surface roughness and cement space on crown retention

Cited by 45 publications

References 9 publications

The effects of die‐Spacidng on post‐cementation crown elevation and retention

The effects of die‐Spacidng on post‐cementation crown elevation and retention

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

Effect of production method on surface roughness, marginal and internal fit, and retention of cobalt-chromium single crowns

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About