The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of removal forces of implant-supported zirconia copings depending on abutment geometry, luting agent and cleaning method during re-cementation

  • Rodiger, Matthias (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University Medical Center Goettingen) ;
  • Rinke, Sven (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University Medical Center Goettingen) ;
  • Ehret-Kleinau, Fenja (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University Medical Center Goettingen) ;
  • Pohlmeyer, Franziska (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University Medical Center Goettingen) ;
  • Lange, Katharina (Department of Medical Statistics, University Medical Center Goettingen) ;
  • Burgers, Ralf (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University Medical Center Goettingen) ;
  • Gersdorff, Nikolaus (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University Medical Center Goettingen)
  • Received : 2014.05.07
  • Accepted : 2014.06.11
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. To evaluate the effects of different abutment geometries in combination with varying luting agents and the effectiveness of different cleaning methods (prior to re-cementation) regarding the retentiveness of zirconia copings on implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Implants were embedded in resin blocks. Three groups of titanium abutments (pre-fabricated, height: 7.5 mm, taper: $5.7^{\circ}$; customized-long, height: 6.79 mm, taper: $4.8^{\circ}$; customized-short, height: 4.31 mm, taper: $4.8^{\circ}$) were used for luting of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia copings with a semi-permanent (Telio CS) and a provisional cement (TempBond NE). Retention forces were evaluated using a universal testing machine. Furthermore, the influence of cleaning methods (manually, manually in combination with ultrasonic bath or sandblasting) prior to re-cementation with a provisional cement (TempBond NE) was investigated with the pre-fabricated titanium abutments (height: 7.5 mm, taper: $5.7^{\circ}$) and SEM-analysis of inner surfaces of the copings was performed. Significant differences were determined via two-way ANOVA. RESULTS. Significant interactions between abutment geometry and luting agent were observed. TempBond NE showed the highest level of retentiveness on customized-long abutments, but was negatively affected by other abutment geometries. In contrast, luting with Telio CS demonstrated consistent results irrespective of the varying abutment geometries. Manual cleaning in combination with an ultrasonic bath was the only cleaning method tested prior to re-cementation that revealed retentiveness levels not inferior to primary cementation. CONCLUSION. No superiority for one of the two cements could be demonstrated because their influences on retentive strength are also depending on abutment geometry. Only manual cleaning in combination with an ultrasonic bath offers retentiveness levels after re-cementation comparable to those of primary luting.

Keywords

References

  1. Heydecke G, Kohal R, Glaser R. Optimal esthetics in singletooth replacement with the Re-Implant system: a case report. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12:184-9.
  2. Sailer I, Zembic A, Jung RE, Hammerle CH, Mattiola A. Single-tooth implant reconstructions: esthetic factors influencing the decision between titanium and zirconia abutments in anterior regions. Eur J Esthet Dent 2007;2:296-310.
  3. Fischer H, Karaca F, Marx R. Detection of microscopic cracks in dental ceramic materials by fluorescent penetrant method. J Biomed Mater Res 2002;61:153-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.10148
  4. Guess PC, Att W, Strub JR. Zirconia in fixed implant prosthodontics. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:633-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00317.x
  5. Rekow ED, Silva NR, Coelho PG, Zhang Y, Guess P, Thompson VP. Performance of dental ceramics: challenges for improvements. J Dent Res 2011;90:937-52. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510391795
  6. Larsson C, Wennerberg A. The clinical success of zirconiabased crowns: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont 2014; 27:33-43. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.3647
  7. Kohorst P, Junghanns J, Dittmer MP, Borchers L, Stiesch M. Different CAD/CAM-processing routes for zirconia restorations: influence on fitting accuracy. Clin Oral Investig 2011; 15:527-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0415-9
  8. Beuer F, Naumann M, Gernet W, Sorensen JA. Precision of fit: zirconia three-unit fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Investig 2009;13:343-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-008-0224-6
  9. Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:28-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70203-8
  10. Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:719-28.
  11. Torrado E, Ercoli C, Al Mardini M, Graser GN, Tallents RH, Cordaro L. A comparison of the porcelain fracture resistance of screw-retained and cement-retained implant-supported metal-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:532-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.03.014
  12. Bragger U, Karoussis I, Persson R, Pjetursson B, Salvi G, Lang N. Technical and biological complications/failures with single crowns and fixed partial dentures on implants: a 10-year prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:326-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01105.x
  13. Sherif S, Susarla SM, Hwang JW, Weber HP, Wright RF. Clinician- and patient-reported long-term evaluation of screw- and cement-retained implant restorations: a 5-year prospective study. Clin Oral Investig 2011;15:993-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0460-4
  14. Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Bogacki MT, Tietge JD. Use of luting agents with an implant system: Part I. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:737-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90194-F
  15. Park JI, Lee Y, Lee JH, Kim YL, Bae JM, Cho HW. Comparison of fracture resistance and fit accuracy of customized zirconia abutments with prefabricated zirconia abutments in internal hexagonal implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2013;15:769-78.
  16. Jung RE, Holderegger C, Sailer I, Khraisat A, Suter A, Hammerle CH. The effect of all-ceramic and porcelainfused- to-metal restorations on marginal peri-implant soft tis-sue color: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2008;28:357-65.
  17. Blatz MB, Bergler M, Holst S, Block MS. Zirconia abutments for single-tooth implants-rationale and clinical guidelines. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:74-81.
  18. Vigolo P, Fonzi F, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. An in vitro evaluation of titanium, zirconia, and alumina procera abutments with hexagonal connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:575-80.
  19. Zembic A, Sailer I, Jung RE, Hammerle CH. Randomizedcontrolled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for single-tooth implants in canine and posterior regions: 3-year results. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:802-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01717.x
  20. Bresciano M, Schierano G, Manzella C, Screti A, Bignardi C, Preti G. Retention of luting agents on implant abutments of different height and taper. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16: 594-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01159.x
  21. Schiessl C, Schaefer L, Winter C, Fuerst J, Rosentritt M, Zeman F, Behr M. Factors determining the retentiveness of luting agents used with metal- and ceramic-based implant components. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1179-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0798-x
  22. Bernal G, Okamura M, Munoz 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1059-941X(03)00006-8
  23. Zidan O, Ferguson GC. The retention of complete crowns prepared with three different tapers and luted with four different cements. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:565-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00182-3
  24. Kim Y, Yamashita J, Shotwell JL, Chong KH, Wang HL. The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:450-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.03.020
  25. Kokubo Y, Kano T, Tsumita M, Sakurai S, Itayama A, Fukushima S. Retention of zirconia copings on zirconia implant abutments cemented with provisional luting agents. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:48-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02013.x
  26. Keum EC, Shin SY. A comparison of retentive strength of implant cement depending on various methods of removing provisional cement from implant abutment. J Adv Prosthodont 2013;5:234-40. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2013.5.3.234
  27. Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Sindel J. Repair strength of etched vs silica-coated metal-ceramic and all-ceramic restorations. Oper Dent 2000;25:209-15.
  28. Chintapalli RK, Mestra Rodriguez A, Garcia Marro F, Anglada M. Effect of sandblasting and residual stress on strength of zirconia for restorative dentistry applications. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2014;29:126-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.09.004
  29. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60149-2
  30. Mehl C, Harder S, Shahriari A, Steiner M, Kern M. Influence of abutment height and thermocycling on retrievability of cemented implant-supported crowns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1106-15.
  31. Caughman WF, Chan DC, Rueggeberg FA. Curing potential of dual-polymerizable resin cements in simulated clinical situations. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:479-84. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.114842
  32. Son YH, Han CH, Kim S. Influence of internal-gap width and cement type on the retentive force of zirconia copings in pullout testing. J Dent 2012;40:866-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.07.007
  33. Ernst CP, Wenzl N, Stender E, Willershausen B. Retentive strengths of cast gold crowns using glass ionomer, compomer, or resin cement. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:472-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70164-7
  34. Mehl C, Harder S, Steiner M, Vollrath O, Kern M. Influence of cement film thickness on the retention of implant-retained crowns. J Prosthodont 2013;22:618-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12058
  35. Cano-Batalla J, Soliva-Garriga J, Campillo-Funollet M, Munoz-Viveros CA, Giner-Tarrida L. Influence of abutment height and surface roughness on in vitro retention of three luting agents. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:36-41.
  36. Enkling N, Ueda T, Gholami H, Bayer S, Katsoulis J, Mericske-Stern R. Precision of fit and retention force of cast non-precious-crowns on standard titanium implant-abutment with different design and height. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:451-7.
  37. Binon PP. The effect of implant/abutment hexagonal misfit on screw joint stability. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9:149-60.
  38. Cibirka RM, Nelson SK, Lang BR, Rueggeberg FA. Examination of the implant-abutment interface after fatigue testing. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:268-75. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.114266
  39. Binon PP. Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:76-94.
  40. Attia A, Lehmann F, Kern M. Influence of surface conditioning and cleaning methods on resin bonding to zirconia ceramic. Dent Mater 2011;27:207-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.004

Cited by

  1. Clinical evaluation of an improved cementation technique for implant-supported restorations: a randomized controlled trial vol.27, pp.12, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12589
  2. Effect of cement type on the color attributes of a zirconia ceramic vol.8, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.6.449
  3. Effects of abutment diameter, luting agent type, and re-cementation on the retention of implant-supported CAD/CAM metal copings over short abutments vol.10, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.1.1
  4. Influence of abutment height and convergence angle on the retrievability of cement-retained implant prostheses with a lingual slot vol.10, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.5.381
  5. Influence of Luting Materials on the Retention of Cemented Implant-Supported Crowns: An In Vitro Study vol.11, pp.10, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11101853
  6. Effect of Abutment Geometry and Luting Agents on the Vertical Marginal Discrepancy of Cast Copings on Implant Abutments: An In Vitro Study vol.2021, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9950972