In Vitro Impact Testing to Simulate Implant-Supported Prosthesis Retrievability in Clinical Practice: Influence of Cement and Abutment Geometry

Abstract

Cement-retained implant-supported prosthetics are gaining popularity compared to the alternative screw-retained type, a rise that serves to highlight the importance of retrievability. The aim of the present investigation is to determine the influence of luting agent, abutment height and taper angle on the retrievability of abutment–coping cementations. Abutments with different heights and tapers were screwed onto an implant and their cobalt-chrome copings were cemented on the abutments using three different luting agents. The removals were performed by means of Coronaflex®. The number of impulses and the forces were recorded and analyzed with a Kruskal–Wallis test. Harvard cement needed the highest number of impulses for retrieval, followed by Telio CS and Temp Bond. However, abutment height and taper showed a greater influence on the cap’s retrievability (p < 0.05). Long and tapered abutments provided the highest percentage of good retrievability. The influence of the luting agent and the abutment geometry on the cap’s retrieval performed by Coronaflex® reflects data from literature about the influence of the same factor on the maximum force reached during uniaxial tensile tests. The impulse force was slightly affected by the same factors.

In Vitro Simulation of Dental Implant Bridges Removal: Influence of Luting Agent and Abutments Geometry on Retrievability

“…The data acquisition system was described in our previous study [22]. It is composed of a load cell, which was positioned under the most retentive abutment of the bridge (i.e., the one with the lowest taper angle, according to the results of the previous study [22]) during each test, an amplifier, and a data acquisition board. The acquisition frequency was set at 51.2 kHz and signal acquisition was performed by means of LabVIEW SignalExpres.…”

“…In particular, several studies in literature highlight a stronger retention with high abutments over short ones, and a loss of retention when the taper angle is increased [17][18][19]. These three main factors (abutment height, taper angle, and luting agent) were largely investigated in previous studies, both with uniaxial tensile tests [19][20][21] and impulsive loads application [22][23][24][25]. However, to the authors' knowledge, all the data provided in literature derive from tests on single implants.…”

“…However, to the authors' knowledge, all the data provided in literature derive from tests on single implants. The present study aims to simulate reality more closely compared to our previous work [22], in which the data were collected from tests on single implants: similar tests are now performed on dental bridges (i.e., multiple implant-supported restorations) models. The influence of abutments geometry and three different luting agents on bridge retrievability through impulsive loads was investigated, using the number of performed impulses and the forces generated during the process, as retrievability indexes.…”

Phantom -based lumbar spine experimental investigation and validation of a multibody model

“…At present, experimental and numerical investigations are being exploited hand-in-hand to answer current biomechanical issues effectively. Therefore, the implementation of a joint approach has permitted relevant steps forward in the understanding of various biomechanical aspects, thus permitting relevant improvements in the clinical sphere, such as in surgical or biomedical procedures [1][2][3][4][5], implants realisation [6][7][8][9][10][11][12] and prosthesis design [13][14][15][16][17]. On the one hand, experimental analysis provides further insights into materials characterisation at different scales [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26], objectifies clinical qualitative outcomes [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35] and lets numerical models be validated [36].…”

Digital vs. Freehand Anterior Single-Tooth Implant Restoration

“…In oral therapy, functional and aesthetic aims cannot be separated [ 6 ]. The great challenge for the dentist lies in perfectly blending surgery with the prosthetics in order to get an overall satisfactory result [ 7 – 9 ]. Furthermore, therapy must guarantee stability over time.…”