Retention of Implant Supported Metal Crowns Cemented with Different Luting Agents: A Comparative Invitro Study

Kapoor, Roohi

doi:10.7860/jcdr/2016/15912.7635

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Manufacturers of some new provisional resin cements claim to have higher retentive strength [ 6 ]. It has been corroborated by some previous [ 7 , 8 ] and the present study in the lithium disilicate ceramic group; although, some other research documented the opposite, even compared with other temporary cements [ 31 ]. However, resin-based provisional cement has certain advantages such as ease of retrievability with adequate strength and excess cement removal, and excellent marginal adaptability [ 32 , 33 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

The effects of provisional resin cements on the color and retentive strength of all-ceramic restorations cemented on customized zirconia abutments

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate the effects of two types of provisional resin cements on the color and retentive strength of two different all-ceramic restorations cemented onto customized zirconia abutments. Forty-two crowns were made of monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate ceramics (n = 21 per group) and cemented on customized zirconia abutments by using two provisional resin cements of TempBond Clear and Implantlink Semi, and TempBond serving as the control (n = 7 per cement subgroup). The specimens’ color was measured before and after cementation and after thermocycling. The color difference was calculated by using CIEDE2000 formula (ΔE00). The tensile force was applied to assess the retentive strength. Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn’s post-hoc, and Mann-Whitney non-parametric tests were used to compare ΔE00(1) and ΔE00(2) and two-way ANOVA followed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD post hoc test and T-test were used to compare retentive strength between subgroups. In the lithium disilicate group, ΔE00 of the control subgroup (TempBond) was significantly higher than that of Implantlink Semi cements subgroup (P = 0.001). But, in the monolithic zirconia group, ΔE00 of the control subgroup (TempBond) was significantly higher than that of Implantlink Semi (P = 0.020) and TempBond Clear cements (P = 0.007). In the monolithic zirconia group, the control subgroup (TempBond) was significantly more retentive than TempBond Clear (P = 0.003) and Implantlink Semi cement (P = 0.001). However, in the lithium disilicate group, Implantlink Semi cement was significantly more retentive than TempBond Clear (P = 0.019) and TempBond (control) (P = 0.001). The final color of both restorations was significantly affected by the provisional resin cement type. The retentive strength was influenced by both the type of cement and ceramic.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

The effects of provisional resin cements on the color and retentive strength of all-ceramic restorations cemented on customized zirconia abutments

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These results align with previously published retention values for resin and RMGI cements for cement‐retained implant crowns. For instance, the load required to decement implant crowns luted with permanent cements for resin cement indicated the highest retention value of ∼581 N, followed by zinc phosphate cement at ∼529 N and RMGI cement at ∼338 N . These differences in retention values offer an explanation for why implant crowns luted with RMGI cement may have been easier to remove and required a shorter irradiation time with Er:YAG laser than crowns cemented with CR cement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

In Vitro Examination of the Use of Er:YAG Laser to Retrieve Lithium Disilicate Crowns from Titanium Implant Abutments

Grzech‐Leśniak

Bencharit

Dalal

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Removal of cement‐retained implant crowns can be difficult and often requires sectioning of the prosthesis by rotary instruments. This study aimed to measure how much time is required in crown removal and the temperature changes when erbium‐doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) laser was used to retrieve lithium disilicate crowns from titanium implant abutments luted with composite resin (CR) cement and resin‐modified glass ionomer (RMGI). Materials and Methods Forty identical lithium disilicate crowns were fabricated for prefabricated titanium abutments. CR and RMGI cements were used to lute the crowns, 20 specimens for each cement. Specimens were kept in 100% humidity for 48 hours. Er:YAG laser was then used to facilitate the crown retrieval. The retrieval time was recorded. The temperature changes at the abutment level for each type of cement were recorded during irradiation of 10 specimens for each type of cement from 1 to 10 minutes. Data were analyzed using t‐test (ɑ = 0.01) and paired t‐test (ɑ = 0.05). The surfaces of the crown and the abutment were further examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results The average times of crown removal from titanium abutments were 196.5 seconds for CR and 97.5 seconds for RMGI groups with statistical significance (p < 0.001). The temperatures measured from 1 to 10 minutes of irradiation ranged from 18° to 20.8° for CR and 18° to 23° for RMGI at the abutment surface, and 22.1° to 24.6° for CR and 22° to 24.8° for RMGI at the crown surface. No statistical differences were observed between temperature changes at the abutment or the crown for each cement (p = 0.63); however, there was a statistically significant difference between the temperatures at the abutment and crown for both cements (p < 0.001). SEM examination showed no visible damage caused by treatment with Er:YAG laser. Conclusions It is faster to remove lithium disilicate crowns from titanium implant abutments when luted with RMGI compared to CR cement. The temperature rise was higher in the crown compared to the abutment. The type of cement had no effects on temperature changes. Heat generated from Er:YAG irradiation does not appear to be high enough to have any adverse effect on implant osseointegration.

show abstract

“…The ideal cement should be strong enough to retain the crown indefinitely, yet weak enough to allow the clinician to retrieve it if necessary. [ 7 8 9 10 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An in vitro study to compare the influence of newer luting cements on retention of cement-retained implant-supported prosthesis

Sarfaraz

Hassan

Shenoy

et al. 2019

J Indian Prosthodont Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The study was conducted to evaluate the retentiveness of specifically formulated implant cements and compare its retentiveness with a commonly used noneugenol zinc oxide luting cement and also to assess the influence of abutment height on the retentiveness of these cements. Materials and Methods: A master stainless steel mold was used to mount snappy abutment-implant analog complex in acrylic resin. A total of six snappy abutments (Nobel Biocare ® ) of 4 mm and 5.5 mm height with their analogs were used. A total of 66 ceramill ® Sintron metal copings fabricated using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing system and divided into six groups ( n = 11) according to the height (three 4 mm abutment and three 5.5 mm abutment). The cements that were compared were a Noneugenol zinc oxide provisional cement (Temp-Bond™ NE), a Noneugenol temporary resin cement (Premier ® Implant Cement) and a resin based acrylic urethane cement (Implalute ® Implant Cement). After cementation samples were immersed in artificial saliva for 7 days and subjected to a pull-out test using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The load required to de-cement each coping was recorded and analyzed using one-way ANOVA, post hoc multiple comparison, and independent t -test. Results: Noneugenol temporary resin cement had the highest tensile strength followed by noneugenol zinc oxide cement and the least retentive strength was observed in resin-based acrylic urethane cement. Conclusion: The results suggest that noneugenol temporary resin cement may be considered as a better choice for cementation of implant prosthesis, as it has shown to have better mechanical properties.

show abstract

Retention of Implant Supported Metal Crowns Cemented with Different Luting Agents: A Comparative Invitro Study

Cited by 10 publications

References 7 publications

The effects of provisional resin cements on the color and retentive strength of all-ceramic restorations cemented on customized zirconia abutments

The effects of provisional resin cements on the color and retentive strength of all-ceramic restorations cemented on customized zirconia abutments

In Vitro Examination of the Use of Er:YAG Laser to Retrieve Lithium Disilicate Crowns from Titanium Implant Abutments

An in vitro study to compare the influence of newer luting cements on retention of cement-retained implant-supported prosthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About