Which Factors have an Impact on the Retention of Cemented Crowns on Implant Abutments? A Literature Review

Prause, Elisabeth; Rosentritt, Martin; Beuer, Florian; J, Hey

doi:10.16966/2378-7090.378

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Mehta,

Kesari,

Tomar

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objective Cement-retained prostheses have replaced screw-retained prostheses as the preferred restoration in recent years in order to overcome the latter's limitations. In this study, four different luting cements were compared to evaluate their efficacy on the retention of cement-based metal crowns to implant abutments. Materials and methods In the right and left first molar regions, four implant analogs (Internal Hex, Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd., Tel-Aviv, Israel) were screwed into epoxy resin casts (Araldite CY 230-1 IN, India) that were positioned perpendicular to the cast's plane. Four metal copings were created and cemented. Group A: polycarboxylate cement (DUR) (DurelonTM, 3M Espe, St. Paul, MN); Group B: PANAVIA™ F 2.0 dual-cure resin cement (Kuraray America, Inc., New York, NY); Group C: resin-modified glass ionomer (3M™ RelyX™ Luting, 3M Espe); and Group D: non-eugenol temporary resin cement (Kerr-Temp, KaVo Kerr, Brea, CA) were used to cement crowns. To check the retention capacity, samples were put through a pull-out test on an Instron universal testing machine (TSI‑Tecsol, Bengaluru, India) with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Each coping's de-cementing load was noted, and average values for every sample were computed and statistically analyzed. Results The findings demonstrated that non-eugenol temporary resin implant cement has the lowest retention value at 138.256 N, followed by resin-modified glass ionomer cement at 342.063 N, polycarboxylate luting cement at 531.362 N, and resin cement at 674.065 N. The average difference in retentive strength across all four groups was statistically very significant (p=0.001). Conclusion Based on our findings, non-eugenol temporary resin implant cement enables simple retrievability of the prosthesis in the event of a future failure and is appropriate for implant restorations with cement retention. Also, cements made of polycarboxylate and resin have the highest retention values.

show abstract