Retention of CAD/CAM All‐Ceramic Crowns on Prefabricated Implant Abutments: An In Vitro Comparative Study of Luting Agents and Abutment Surface Area

Abstract

Of the five cements tested, the most retrievable CAD/CAM restorations were luted with Temp Bond NE and Improv Temporary Cement. Resin-modified glass ionomer retentive forces were closer to those of the "temporary cements" than those of the permanent adhesive-resin cements. The abutment surface area became less important when using adhesive-resin cements. Retention of CAD/CAM all-ceramic restorations to prefabricated abutments has not been reported in the literature. This in vitro study demonstrated clinically significant variation among the selected cements used to retain all-ceramic CAD/CAM restorations to implant abutments. In addition, abutment size influenced the retention of all-ceramic CAD/CAM restorations.

Two‐part implant abutments with titanium and ceramic components: Surface modification affects retention forces—An in‐vitro study

“…Retention force between the components of two‐part abutments is also influenced by fixture materials and surface modification (von Maltzahn, Holstermann, & Kohorst, ). For example, Carnaggio et al investigated the retention of CAD/CAM restorations on different prefabricated abutments and concluded that the type of cement can significantly influence the retention between restoration and abutment (Carnaggio et al, ). This influence of the type of resin agent was confirmed by Nejatidanesh et al(Nejatidanesh, Savabi, & Shahtoosi, ).…”

Retention Forces between Titanium and Zirconia Components of Two‐Part Implant Abutments with Different Techniques of Surface Modification

“…A few investigations have shown that the retention force between the zirconia and titanium components is influenced not only by the fixture materials, but also by the surface characteristics of the components . Ebert and colleagues analyzed two different methods of conditioning the surface of zirconia copings bonded to titanium abutments with composite resin cement.…”

The Effect of CAD/CAM Crown Material and Cement Type on Retention to Implant Abutments

“…It can be inferred that the initial frictional retention was altered by residual cement in the Ti‐base grooves or a possible crown/abutment deformation during the pullout test, thus causing the statistical differences among groups without cement. Whereas our study simulated a possible clinical scenario of crown try‐in and its temporary cementation prior to final bonding, it has been previously reported that specimen reuse may be the source of changes in the abutment/crowns surfaces during cleaning potentially altering the mechanical interlocking . However, different behavior was observed when data were evaluated as a function of both factors, with groups without cement demonstrating similar pullout resistance for all crown materials, except for Zr Baseline.…”