Click for new scientific resources and news about Corona[COVID-19]

Paper Information

Journal:   FRONTIERS IN DENTISTRY (JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY OF TEHRAN UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL SCIENCES)   MAY 2014 , Volume 11 , Number 3; Page(s) 256 To 262.
 
Paper: 

EFFECT OF ABUTMENT MODIFICATION AND CEMENT TYPE ON RETENTION OF CEMENT-RETAINED IMPLANT-SUPPORTED CROWNS

 
 
Author(s):  FARZIN MITRA, TORABI KIANOOSH*, AHANGARI AHMADHASAN, DERAFSHI REZA
 
* DEPATMENT OF PROSTHODONTICS, BIOMATERIAL RESEARCH CENTER FACULTY OF DENTISTRY, SHIRAZ, IRAN
 
Abstract: 

Objective: Provisional cements are commonly used to facilitate retrievability of cement-retained fixed implant restorations; but compromised abutment preparation may affect the retention of implant-retained crowns. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of abutment design and type of luting agent on the retentive strength of cement-retained implant restorations.
Material and Methods: Two prefabricated abutments were attached to their corresponding analogs and embedded in an acrylic resin block. The first abutment (control group) was left intact without any modifications. The screw access channel for the first abutment was completely filled with composite resin. In the second abutment, (test group) the axial wall was partially removed to form an abutment with 3 walls. Wax models were made by CAD/CAM. Ten cast copings were fabricated for each abutment. The prepared copings were cemented on the abutments by Temp Bond luting agent under standardized conditions (n=20). The assemblies were stored in 100% humidity for one day at 370C prior to testing. The cast crown was removed from the abutment using an Instron machine, and the peak removal force was recorded.
Coping/abutment specimens were cleaned after testing, and the testing procedure was repeated for Dycal luting agent (n=20). Data were analyzed with two- way ANOVA (
a=0.05).
Results: There was no significant difference in the mean transformed retention (Ln-R) be-tween intact abutments (4.90±0.37) and the abutments with 3 walls (4.83±0.25) using Dycal luting agent. However, in TempBond group, the mean transformed retention (Ln-R) was significantly lower in the intact abutment (3.9±0.23) compared to the abutment with 3 walls (4.13±0.33, P=0.027).
Conclusion: The retention of cement-retained implant restoration can be improved by the type of temporary cement used. The retention of cast crowns cemented to implant abut-ments with TempBond is influenced by the wall removal.

 
Keyword(s): IMPLANT-SUPPORTED PROSTHESIS, TEMPORARY CEMENT, RETENTION, CEMENTATION
 
References: 
  • ندارد
 
  pdf-File tarjomyar Yearly Visit 51
 
Latest on Blog
Enter SID Blog