Effect of Indented Structures on the Retention of Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Crowns by Provisional Cement

Jung-Hoon Choi; Seong-Joo Heo; Jai-Young Koak; Seong-Kyun Kim; Ji-Man Park; Jin-Soo Ahn

doi:10.32542/implantology.2022007

All Issue

2022 Vol.26, Issue 2 Preview Page Next Page

Original Article

Effect of Indented Structures on the Retention of Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Crowns by Provisional Cement

30 June 2022. pp. 84-93

PDF XML

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of indented structures, such as dimples and retention groove formations, on the retention of titanium abutment walls when cementing cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) alloy crowns with zinc oxide-eugenol cement.

Materials and Methods: Forty-eight titanium abutments (n = 6) were prepared, of which 24 abutments were 4.0 mm and the other 24 were 6.0 mm in height. These 4.0 mm and 6.0 mm abutments were organized into eight groups: no-dimple, 2-dimple, 4-dimple, and axial retention groove groups. The position and dimensions of the dimples and axial retention grooves were the same for all prepared abutments. Laser-sintered cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) alloy crowns were cemented using a provisional cement. After thermocycling, a retention test was performed using a universal testing machine. Statistical analysis was performed using the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis test and post-hoc Mann–Whitney U test (𝛼= .05) to compare the mean retentive force.

Results: The lowest retentive force recorded was from the 4.0 mm no-dimple group (112.03 ± 20.30). Forming dimples and retention grooves increased the retentive force for the 4.0 mm groups, but the difference was not statistically significant (p > .05). A statistically significant difference was displayed by the 6.0 mm abutment with the 4-dimple group compared to the 6.0 mm no-dimple group (p < .05).

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the mean retentive force was higher with dimples and axial retention grooves for 4.0 mm titanium abutments but was statistically insignificant (p > .05). An increase in abutment height was statistically correlated with an increase in retentive force within the same number of dimple-groups (p < .05).

Keywords

Dental implant

Implant abutment

Implant prosthesis

Retentive force

References

Jenny G, Jauernik J, Bierbaum S, Bigler M, Gratz KW, Rucker M, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on the influence of biological implant surface coatings on periimplant bone formation. J Biomed Mater Res A 2016;104:2898-910. 10.1002/jbm.a.3580527301790

Thomason JM, Heydecke G, Feine JS, Ellis JS. How do patients perceive the benefit of reconstructive dentistry with regard to oral health-related quality of life and patient satisfaction? A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:168-88. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01461.x17594380

Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG, Duncan W, Faggion CM, Esposito M. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site development. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015:CD010176. 10.1002/14651858.CD010176.pub226020735PMC6464392

Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Coulthard P, Thomsen P, Worthington HV. A 5-year follow-up comparative analysis of the efficacy of various osseointegrated dental implant systems: a systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:557-68. 16161740

Levin L, Laviv A, Schwartz-Arad D. Long-term success of implants replacing a single molar. J Periodontol 2006;77:1528-32. 10.1902/jop.2006.06000516945030

Chitumalla R, Halini Kumari KV, Mohapatra A, Parihar AS, Anand KS, Katragadda P. Assessment of Survival Rate of Dental Implants in Patients with Bruxism: A 5-year Retrospective Study. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9:S278-S82. 10.4103/ccd.ccd_258_1830294158PMC6169261

Woelber JP, Ratka-Krueger P, Vach K, Frisch E. Decementation Rates and the Peri-Implant Tissue Status of Implant-Supported Fixed Restorations Retained via Zinc Oxide Cement: A Retrospective 10-23-Year Study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016;18:917-25. 10.1111/cid.1237226265426

Nissan J, Narobai D, Gross O, Ghelfan O, Chaushu G. Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:1102-7. 22010095

Covey DA, Kent DK, St Germain HA Jr, Koka S. Effects of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:344-8. 10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70138-7

Pinelli LAP, Fais LMG, Ricci WA, Reis JMSN. In vitro comparisons of casting retention on implant abutments among commercially available and experimental castor oil-containing dental luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:319-24. 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60308-X

Bernal G, Okamura M, Muñoz CA. The effects of abutment taper, length and cement type on resistance to dislodgement of cement‐retained, implant‐supported restorations. J Prosthodont 2003;12:111-5. 10.1016/S1059-941X(03)00006-8

Lewinstein I, Block L, Lehr Z, Ormianer Z, Matalon S. An in vitro assessment of circumferential grooves on the retention of cement-retained implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:367-72. 10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60149-2

Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ES, et al. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 2013;14:365-76. 10.1038/nrn347523571845

Kanie T, Kadokawa A, Nagata M, Arikawa H. A comparison of stress relaxation in temporary and permanent luting cements. J Prosthodont Res 2013;57:46-50. 10.1016/j.jpor.2012.09.00323182928

Al Hamad KQ, Al Rashdan BA, Abu-Sitta EH. The effects of height and surface roughness of abutments and the type of cement on bond strength of cement-retained implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:638-44. 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02011.x21039897

Safari S, Hosseini Ghavam F, Amini P, Yaghmaei K. Effects of abutment diameter, luting agent type, and re-cementation on the retention of implant-supported CAD/CAM metal copings over short abutments. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10:1-7. 10.4047/jap.2018.10.1.129503708PMC5829282

He LH, Purton DG, Swain MV. A suitable base material for composite resin restorations: zinc oxide eugenol. J Dent 2010;38:290-5. 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.11.00919961894

Michalakis K, Pissiotis AL, Kang K, Hirayama H, Garefis PD, Petridis H. The effect of thermal cycling and air abrasion on cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:569-74. 17929517

Luthy H, Loeffel O, Hammerle CH. Effect of thermocycling on bond strength of luting cements to zirconia ceramic. Dent Mater 2006;22:195-200. 10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.01616143382

Pilo R, Agar-Zoizner S, Gelbard S, Levartovsky S. The Retentive Strength of Laser-Sintered Cobalt-Chromium-Based Crowns after Pretreatment with a Desensitizing Paste Containing 8% Arginine and Calcium Carbonate. Int J Mol Sci 2018;19:4082. 10.3390/ijms1912408230562955PMC6321158

Information

Publisher :The Korean Academy of Oral & Maxillofacial Implantology
Publisher(Ko) :대한구강악안면임플란트학회
Journal Title :Journal of implantology and applied sciences
Journal Title(Ko) :대한구강악안면임플란트학회지
Volume : 26
No :2
Pages :84-93
Received Date : 2022-04-26
Revised Date : 2022-05-09
Accepted Date : 2022-05-23
DOI :https://doi.org/10.32542/implantology.2022007

Journal of implantology and applied sciences ISSN:2765-7833(Print) 2765-7841(Online) 대한구강악안면임플란트학회지

All Issue