The Effect of Fatigue Damage on the Force Required to Remove a Restoration in a Cement‐Retained Implant System

Kaar, Darian; Oshida, Yoshiki; Andres, Carl J.; Barco, Martin T.; Platt, Jeffrey A.

doi:10.1111/j.1532-849x.2006.00126.x

Cited by 19 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, inter- and intraindividual mastication variability associated with the type of food, age, sex, missing teeth, and use of prosthesis or joint and muscle pathology means that there is great variability in the number of cycles corresponding to the average daily, weekly, or annual human masticatory function. In this trial, the number of compressive cycles coincides with one study and was lower than in other studies [8, 20]. A load of 100 N was applied, a value close to that produced in the front part of the mouth and not far from the 75–110 N of other studies [8, 26].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…By contrast, there are very few references comparing retentiveness before and after a cyclic compressive loading which simulates mastication to decide whether the final retention of these cement types after a long period of mastication is enough to support the retrievability and at the same time keep the restoration in place [8, 18, 20, 26]. Knowledge of these data may be useful to clinicians to decide which cement to use if they need to retrieve the restoration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retention Strength after Compressive Cyclic Loading of Five Luting Agents Used in Implant-Supported Prostheses

Álvarez-Arenal

González-González

deLlanos-Lanchares

et al. 2016

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the retention strength of five cement types commonly used in implant-retained fixed partial dentures, before and after compressive cyclic loading. In five solid abutments screwed to 5 implant analogs, 50 metal Cr-Ni alloy copings were cemented with five luting agents: resin-modified glass ionomer (RmGI), resin composite (RC), glass ionomer (GI), resin urethane-based (RUB), and compomer cement (CC). Two tensile tests were conducted with a universal testing machine, one after the first luting of the copings and the other after 100,000 cycles of 100 N loading at 0.72 Hz. The one way ANOVA test was applied for the statistical analysis using the post hoc Tukey test when required. Before and after applying the compressive load, RmGI and RC cement types showed the greatest retention strength. After compressive loading, RUB cement showed the highest percentage loss of retention (64.45%). GI cement recorded the lowest retention strength (50.35 N) and the resin composite cement recorded the highest (352.02 N). The type of cement influences the retention loss. The clinician should give preference to lower retention strength cement (RUB, CC, and GI) if he envisages any complications and a high retention strength one (RmGI, RC) for a specific clinical situation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retention Strength after Compressive Cyclic Loading of Five Luting Agents Used in Implant-Supported Prostheses

Álvarez-Arenal

González-González

deLlanos-Lanchares

et al. 2016

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the optimum retentive force to an implant prosthesis is not clearly understood. Several investigations have reported on the retentive force of temporary cements [8][9][10][11][15][16][17][18][19][20] , with the results showing that their retentive force ranged between 16 and 467 N [8][9][10][11]19,20) . In a majority of these previous studies, the retentive force values were examined at 24 h after seating the crowns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Retention of crowns cemented on implant abutments with temporary cements

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was to examine the retentive force of crowns to implant abutments with commercial temporary cements. Six different temporary cements were investigated. Cast crowns were cemented to the abutments using each cement and their retentive forces to abutments were determined 7 or 28 days after cementing (n=10). The retentive force of the cements to abutments varied widely among the products [27-109 N (7-day), 18-80 N (28-days)]. The retentive force of all the cements was not reduced as the time elapsed, except for two products tested. The polycarboxylate cements and paste-mixing type eugenol-free cements revealed comparable retentive force after 28 days of storage. The powder-liquid type cements showed a positive correlation (p<0.05) between the retentive force and the shear strength, while a negative correlation (p<0.05) was obtained for paste-mixing type cement between the retentive force and compressive strength. Mechanical strength of temporary cements could not be a prominent predicting factor for retention of the crowns on the abutments.

show abstract

“…The clinical stresses may not be represented by purely tensile test where other non-axial forces may contribute to crown decementation (36) . However, the pure tensile testing was used because it represents the worst case clinical scenario, and has been adopted in other studies and could allow comparison of our results with previous investigations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Different Types of Luting Cements on Retention and Marginal Adaptation of Implant-Supported Crowns (An in Vitro Study)

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retention values and marginal adaptation of implant-supported metal copings using different luting agents. Material and Method:Forty implant fixtures and solid abutments of 7mm height were embedded vertically in epoxy resin blocks. Metal copings with a loop on the occlusal surface were fabricated using base metal alloy. The copings were luted using four different cements (Multilink N, Fuji Plus, Fuji1 and Adhesor) under static load of 5kg (n=10). All specimens were subjected to 1000 thermal cycles between 5˚c and 55˚c with a dwell time of 10 seconds in a thermocycling device. Marginal accuracy was detected before and after cementation of all specimens by stereomicroscope. TheTensile force required to dislodge the copings were determined by a computer controlled universal testing machine with a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/ min.The force in Newton(N) required to remove the copings was recorded. Data was collected and statistically analyzed.Results: Multilink N and Fuji1 had the highest and the least mean retentive strength respectively. There was no significant difference between MultilinkN, Fuji Plus and Adhesor. The absolute marginal discrepancies of cements were in reducing order zinc phosphate , resin modified glass ionomer, glass ionomer and resin cement.Conclusion: within the conditions of this study, resin cement, the resin modified glass ionomer and zinc phosphate had statistically the same retentive quality and are recommended for definitive cementation of single implant-supported restoration. Different luting media had a definite effect over the final fit of all metal copings, but they were all within the clinically accepted level of 100 µm.

show abstract

The Effect of Fatigue Damage on the Force Required to Remove a Restoration in a Cement‐Retained Implant System

Cited by 19 publications

References 12 publications

Retention Strength after Compressive Cyclic Loading of Five Luting Agents Used in Implant-Supported Prostheses

Retention Strength after Compressive Cyclic Loading of Five Luting Agents Used in Implant-Supported Prostheses

Retention of crowns cemented on implant abutments with temporary cements

Effect of Different Types of Luting Cements on Retention and Marginal Adaptation of Implant-Supported Crowns (An in Vitro Study)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About