Retention of different temporary cements tested on zirconia crowns and titanium abutments in vitro

Abstract

Purpose The aim of the present study was to examine the retention force of monolithic zirconia copings cemented with various temporary cements on implant abutments in vitro. Methods Sixty exercise implants with pre-screwed implant abutments were embedded in resin. Subsequently, 60 CAD/CAM manufactured zirconia copings were divided into three main groups [Harvard Implant Semi-permanent (HAV), implantlink semi Forte (IMP), Temp Bond NE (TBNE)]. The zirconia copings were cemented on the implant abutments and loaded with 35 N. Specimens were stored in distilled water (37 °C) for 24 h. Half of the test specimens of each group were subjected to a thermocycling (TC) process. Retention force was measured in a universal testing machine. Using magnifying glasses, the fracture mode was determined. Statistical analysis was performed applying the Kruskal-Wallis test, the post hoc test according to Dunn-Bonferroni and a chi-square test of independence. Results Without TC, IMP showed the highest retention of the three temporary luting agents (100.5 ± 39.14 N). The measured retention forces of IMP were higher than those of HAV (45.78 ± 15.66 N) and TBNE (61.16 ± 20.19 N). After TC, retention was reduced. IMP showed the greatest retentive strength (21.69 ± 13.61 N, three fail outs). HAV and TBNE showed pull-off forces of similar magnitude (17.38 ± 12.77 N and 16.97 ± 12.36 N, two fail outs). The fracture mode analysis showed different results regarding the tested cements before and after TC (facture type before/after TC): IMP (III+II/III), HAV (I/II) and TBNE (III/III). There were clear differences of the fracture modes regarding the examination before and after TC. Conclusions Within the limits of this study, IMP showed the highest pull-off forces under the chosen test conditions. All three temporary luting agents showed lower retention forces after TC. Retention values in the individual cement classes were very heterogeneous. Easy cement removal in the crown lumen favours the dominance of adhesive cement fractures on the abutment and adhesive/cohesive cement fractures on the abutment with HAV appears advantageous in case of recementation of the superstructure.

Biological interaction, esthetics, handling, and loss rate of temporary luting cements — a clinical single-blind randomized controlled trial

“…Although the clinical demands toward temporary luting materials in terms of biocompatibility, handling, esthetics and retention are high, there have been hardly any research efforts in this regard to date. Until now, temporary luting materials have mainly been investigated in laboratory studies, for example in the context of implant restorations [ 16 , 17 ], with regard to their influence on subsequent adhesive cementation [ 31 , 32 ], and in terms of microleakage [ 33 , 34 ]. Clinical studies focused on temporarily cemented restorations on natural teeth are rare.…”

An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Various Luting Cements on the Retention of Implant-Supported Metal Crowns

“…Glass ionomer can be used as semi-permanent cement for both single crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), as per Bishti et al's analysis of three different cements for implant-supported SC retention forces [ 1 ]. According to some reports, the proportion of retention loss following compressive cyclic loading is lower if the initial cement retention is higher [ 4 , 10 , 11 , 12 ]. For the purpose of cementing implant crowns, Garg et al compared resin-bonded ZOE cement, zinc phosphate cement, glass ionomer cement, and zinc polycarboxylate cement, and came to the conclusion that these cements were superior over others for cementation [ 13 ].…”

The Preliminary Development of a Friction-Based Lateral Screw-Retained Dental Crown—A Comparison between the Prototype Surface Treatment and the Retention Strength

“…Immediately after the placement, the coping was then subjected to a 50 N load for 10 min [41,45,46]. All of the samples prepared in this experiment were stored in distilled water with a temperature amounting to 37 • C for 24 h before they were tested [47]. This condition helped ensure that the cement would be fully cured under a similar condition to that of the patient's placement.…”