BibTex RIS Cite

Retention properties of six different luting cements on titanium surface

Year 2014, Volume: 17 Issue: 1, 48 - 54, 24.01.2014

Hakan Akin

https://doi.org/10.7126/cdj.58140.1008002152
Cited By: 1

Abstract

Objectives: With conflicting results in the literature and various manufacturer recommendations, implant restorative cements can provide inadequate retention on implants, especially short or single implants. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the retentive properties of six different implant restorative cements on titanium surface.

Materials and Methods: A total of 120 titanium rods of specimens (10 mm in length and 12 mm in diameter) were divided into 6 experimental groups (n=20) and six different cements were compared: Adhesor (A), Adhesor Carbofine (AC), Cavitan Cem (CC), Meron (M), Implacem (IM), and MIS Crown Set (MIS). Specimens were subjected to shear bond strength test by a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (α=0.05).

Results: The highest mean bond strength was observed in specimens of group MIS, and followed by specimens of group AC. The adhesive failure mode was predominantly observed in all groups.

Conclusions: Different cements on titanium surfaces provide different retention levels. Resin cement is the cement of choice for the definitive non-retrievable cementation of crown copings to implant abutments.

Keywords

Luting cement titanium implant shear bond strength.

References

  • 1. Dudley JE, Richards LC, Abbott JR. Retention of cast crown copings cemented to implant abutments. Australian Dent J 2008;53:332–339.
  • 2. Wadhwani C, Hess T, Faber T, Piñeyro A, Chen CSK. A descriptive study of the radiographic density of implant restorative cements. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:295-302.
  • 3. Kim Y, Yamashita J, Shotwell JL, Chong K-H, Wang H-L. The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:450-455.
  • 4. Uludamar A, Kulak Ozkan Y. Cement selection of cemented implant supported restorations. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2012;15:166-174.
  • 5. Wahl C, França FM, Brito RB Jr, Basting RT, Smanio H. Assessment of the tensile strength of hexagonal abutments using different cementing agents. Braz Oral Res 2008;22:299- 304.
  • 6. Tarica DY, Alvarado VM, Truong ST. Survey of United States dental schools on cementation protocols for implant crown restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:68-79.
  • 7. Sheets JL, Wilcox C, Wilwerding T. Cement selection for cement-retained crown technique with dental implants. J Prosthodont 2008;17:92- 96.
  • 8. 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;12:111-115.
  • 9. Weber HP, Kim DM, Ng MW, Hwang JW, Fiorellini JP. Periimplant soft-tissue health surrounding cement- and screwretained implant restorations: a multi-center, 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:375-379.
  • 10. Mansour A, Ercoli C, Graser G, Tallents R, Moss M. Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:343-348.
  • 11. Kono A, Fusayama T. Casting shrinkage of one-piece-cast fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1969;22:73-83.
  • 12. Hebel KS, Gajjar RC: Cementretained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:28-35.
  • 13. Emms M, Tredwin CJ, Setchell DJ, Moles DR. The effects of abutment wall height, platform size, and screw access channel filling method on resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont 2007;16:3-9.
  • 14. 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;83:344-348.
  • 15. Schneider RL. Evaluation of the retention of castings to endosseous dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58:73-78.
  • 16. Garey DJ, Tjan AH, James RA, Caputo AA. Effects of thermocycling, load-cycling, and blood contamination on cemented implant abutments. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:124-132.
  • 17. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Crispin BJ. Dental luting agents: A review of the current literature. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:280-301.
  • 18. Chaar MS, Att W, Strub JR. Prosthetic outcome of cementretained implant-supported fixed dental restorations: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2011. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02209.x.
  • 19. Akin H, Guney U. Effect of various surface treatments on the retention properties of titanium to implant restorative cement. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27:1183-1187.
  • 20. Akça K, Iplikçioglu H, Cehreli MC. Comparison of uniaxial resistance forces of cements used with implant- supported crowns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:536- 542.
  • 21. Montenegro AC, Machado AN, Gouve CVD. Tensile strength of cementing agents on the CeraOne system of dental prosthesis on implants. Implant Dent 2008;17:451- 460.
  • 22. Clayton GH, Driscoll CF, Hondrum SO. The effect of luting agents on the retention and marginal adaptation of the CeraOne implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:660-665.
  • 23. Akashi AE, Franchischone CE, Tokutsune E, da Silva W Jr. Effects of different types of temporary cements on the tensile strength and marginal adaptation of crowns on implants. J Adhes Dent 2002;4:309- 315.

Year 2014, Volume: 17 Issue: 1, 48 - 54, 24.01.2014

Hakan Akin

https://doi.org/10.7126/cdj.58140.1008002152
Cited By: 1

Abstract

References

  • 1. Dudley JE, Richards LC, Abbott JR. Retention of cast crown copings cemented to implant abutments. Australian Dent J 2008;53:332–339.
  • 2. Wadhwani C, Hess T, Faber T, Piñeyro A, Chen CSK. A descriptive study of the radiographic density of implant restorative cements. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:295-302.
  • 3. Kim Y, Yamashita J, Shotwell JL, Chong K-H, Wang H-L. The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:450-455.
  • 4. Uludamar A, Kulak Ozkan Y. Cement selection of cemented implant supported restorations. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2012;15:166-174.
  • 5. Wahl C, França FM, Brito RB Jr, Basting RT, Smanio H. Assessment of the tensile strength of hexagonal abutments using different cementing agents. Braz Oral Res 2008;22:299- 304.
  • 6. Tarica DY, Alvarado VM, Truong ST. Survey of United States dental schools on cementation protocols for implant crown restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:68-79.
  • 7. Sheets JL, Wilcox C, Wilwerding T. Cement selection for cement-retained crown technique with dental implants. J Prosthodont 2008;17:92- 96.
  • 8. 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;12:111-115.
  • 9. Weber HP, Kim DM, Ng MW, Hwang JW, Fiorellini JP. Periimplant soft-tissue health surrounding cement- and screwretained implant restorations: a multi-center, 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:375-379.
  • 10. Mansour A, Ercoli C, Graser G, Tallents R, Moss M. Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13:343-348.
  • 11. Kono A, Fusayama T. Casting shrinkage of one-piece-cast fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 1969;22:73-83.
  • 12. Hebel KS, Gajjar RC: Cementretained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:28-35.
  • 13. Emms M, Tredwin CJ, Setchell DJ, Moles DR. The effects of abutment wall height, platform size, and screw access channel filling method on resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont 2007;16:3-9.
  • 14. 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;83:344-348.
  • 15. Schneider RL. Evaluation of the retention of castings to endosseous dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58:73-78.
  • 16. Garey DJ, Tjan AH, James RA, Caputo AA. Effects of thermocycling, load-cycling, and blood contamination on cemented implant abutments. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:124-132.
  • 17. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Crispin BJ. Dental luting agents: A review of the current literature. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:280-301.
  • 18. Chaar MS, Att W, Strub JR. Prosthetic outcome of cementretained implant-supported fixed dental restorations: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2011. Doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02209.x.
  • 19. Akin H, Guney U. Effect of various surface treatments on the retention properties of titanium to implant restorative cement. Lasers Med Sci 2012;27:1183-1187.
  • 20. Akça K, Iplikçioglu H, Cehreli MC. Comparison of uniaxial resistance forces of cements used with implant- supported crowns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:536- 542.
  • 21. Montenegro AC, Machado AN, Gouve CVD. Tensile strength of cementing agents on the CeraOne system of dental prosthesis on implants. Implant Dent 2008;17:451- 460.
  • 22. Clayton GH, Driscoll CF, Hondrum SO. The effect of luting agents on the retention and marginal adaptation of the CeraOne implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:660-665.
  • 23. Akashi AE, Franchischone CE, Tokutsune E, da Silva W Jr. Effects of different types of temporary cements on the tensile strength and marginal adaptation of crowns on implants. J Adhes Dent 2002;4:309- 315.
There are 23 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section Original Research Articles
Authors

Hakan Akin

Publication Date January 24, 2014
Submission Date May 6, 2013
Published in Issue Year 2014Volume: 17 Issue: 1

Cite

EndNote Akin H (January 1, 2014) Retention properties of six different luting cements on titanium surface. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 17 1 48–54.

Cited By

Bond Integrity of Titanium Surface to Resin Cement After Conditioning with Different Photobiomodulataion Therapy (PBT)
Journal of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering
Khold Al Ahdal
https://doi.org/10.1166/jbt.2021.2661

Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.


CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.

Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)

IMPORTANT NOTICE

All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.

Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.