Influence of tooth surface roughness and type of cement on retention of complete cast crowns

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

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

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

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

show abstract

“…Also, the phosphoric acid should improve the retention increasing the surface tension of the etched dentin. The zinc phosphate cement may be more retentive on rough surfaces (3) due to this fact, confirming that this material promotes mechanical bonding (2,4). Conversely, earlier studies showed the superiority of the glass-ionomer cements when compared to zinc phosphate cements (2,4,20) or similarity between these materials (2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Previous studies have shown a significant relationship between the cavity area available for bonding and the retention of the casting, as well as the importance of the roughness of the cavity wall for improving the mechanical retention (2)(3)(4). Thus, these factors can influence the retention values required to dislodge the crown cast filling from cavity preparations (5).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of cement types on the tensile strength of metallic crowns submitted to thermocycling

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The relationship between metallic cast crowns and tensile strength according to cement types submitted to thermocycling was studied. Seventy-two metallic crowns were cast with Verabond II Ni-Cr alloy and cemented in standardized preparations with 10 o tapering. Three types of finishing line (45-degree chamfered, 20-degree bevel shoulder and right shoulder) were made with diamond burs on bovine teeth. Twenty-four metallic crowns in each group were randomly subdivided into three subgroups of 8 samples each according to the cement used: SS White zinc phosphate cement, Vitremer resin-modified glass ionomer cement, and Rely X resin cement and were submitted to thermocycling. Retention was evaluated according to tensile load required to displace the metallic cast crowns from tooth preparations with an Instron testing machine. ANOVA and Tukey's test showed a statistically significant difference among luting materials, with greater results for Rely X resin cement (24.9 kgf) followed by SS White zinc phosphate cement (13.3 kgf) and Vitremer resin-modified glass ionomer cement (10.1 kgf). The finishing line types did not influence the tensile resistance of the crowns fixed with the three cements. Increased tensile resistance of metallic crowns fixed on bovine teeth was obtained with resin cement, independent of the finishing line types.

show abstract

“…Among the tested cements, results showed that glass polyalkenoate cements and polycarboxylate cements had moderate retentive properties, and that the retentive strength of the former was similar to or higher than that of the latter [25][26][27][28] . However, in an evaluation of 11 types of cements used for implantsupported restorations, Sheets et al reported that UltraTemp (regular set), a polycarboxylate provisional cement, was more retentive than Ketac Cem Aplicap, a GIC, and that it was ranked the highest among the 11 types of cements 29) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New glass polyalkenoate temporary cement for cement-retained implant restoration: Evaluation of elevation and retentive strength

Naito

Chen

et al. 2010

Dent. Mater. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate four luting agents for cement-retained implant restorations in two aspects: post-cementation elevation of the superstructure and the retentive strength before and after thermocycling and mechanical cycling. The four evaluated luting agents were: new glass polyalkenoate hard-type (GH) and soft-type (GS) cements, polycarboxylate hard-type (HH) and softtype (HS) cements. Elevation and retentive strength were measured using a CCD laser displacement sensor and a universal testing machine respectively. Elevation increased in this order: GH, GS, HH, and HS. Thermal and mechanical stresses significantly decreased retentive strength, and the mean values exhibited by GH were significantly higher than the other luting agents. The novel glass polyalkenoate cements (hard-and soft-type) experimentally prepared in the present study augured well as luting agents by virtue of their reduced film thickness and their excellent post-cementation retention and elevation.

show abstract

Influence of tooth surface roughness and type of cement on retention of complete cast crowns

Cited by 81 publications

References 11 publications

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

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

Effect of cement types on the tensile strength of metallic crowns submitted to thermocycling

New glass polyalkenoate temporary cement for cement-retained implant restoration: Evaluation of elevation and retentive strength

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About