Evaluation of Effect of Screw Access Cavity Filling Material and Cement on Retention of Implant Cemented Crowns
Document Type : مقالههای پژوهشی
Authors
1 Dental Implants Research Center, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Yazd University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
3 Graduate, Dental Students Research Center, School of Dentistry, Yazd University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
10.48305/v0i0.1383
Abstract
Introduction: Implant-supported prostheses can be screw-type or can be cemented onto the abutment. Use of permanent cements, which are used in conventional prostheses, is not recommended for implant-supported prostheses. These cements are very strong and do not allow easy removal of the prosthesis. By using temporary cements not only permanent cement faults will be eliminated but also prosthesis can be retrieved as needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of screw access filling material and cement on the retention of implant cemented crowns.
Materials & Methods: In this in vitro study, 5 angulated abutments (15°) were screwed onto the analogue and ten crowns were fabricated for each of them. Four filling materials, Coltosol, composite resin, Teflon tape and silicone, were used to fill the access cavity and one abutment was left empty (only the screw was covered). Two temporary cements (Temp Bond and Temp Bond NE) were used to cement the crowns. The force required to remove the crowns was measured with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey test (α = 0.05).
Results: In all the samples, the force required to separate the casting crowns from the abutment were higher in Temp Bond NE group and this difference was statistically significant (p value = 0.007). In addition, the difference between the access filling material was statistically significant (p value ˂ 0.001). Therefore in each group, Coltosol, empty, composite resin, Teflon and the condensational silicone exhibited the highest means of separating force in ascending order.
Conclusion: Retention of implant-supported crowns was influenced by types of filling material, access cavity and cement used.
Key words: Crown, Implant abutment, Retention, Temporary Cement.
Materials & Methods: In this in vitro study, 5 angulated abutments (15°) were screwed onto the analogue and ten crowns were fabricated for each of them. Four filling materials, Coltosol, composite resin, Teflon tape and silicone, were used to fill the access cavity and one abutment was left empty (only the screw was covered). Two temporary cements (Temp Bond and Temp Bond NE) were used to cement the crowns. The force required to remove the crowns was measured with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey test (α = 0.05).
Results: In all the samples, the force required to separate the casting crowns from the abutment were higher in Temp Bond NE group and this difference was statistically significant (p value = 0.007). In addition, the difference between the access filling material was statistically significant (p value ˂ 0.001). Therefore in each group, Coltosol, empty, composite resin, Teflon and the condensational silicone exhibited the highest means of separating force in ascending order.
Conclusion: Retention of implant-supported crowns was influenced by types of filling material, access cavity and cement used.
Key words: Crown, Implant abutment, Retention, Temporary Cement.
1. Misch CE. The implant quality scale: A clinical assessment of the health- disease continuum. Oral Health 1998; 88(7): 15-20, 23-5.
2. Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby Elsevier; 2008. p. 17.
3. Kokubo Y, Kano T, Tsumita M, Sakurai S, Itayama A, Fukushima S. Retention of zirconia coping on zirconia implants abutments cemented with provisional luting agents. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37(1): 48-53.
4. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part III: problems and complications encountered. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 64(2): 185-94.
5. Michalakis KX, Pissiotis AL, Hirayama H. Cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant supported fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15(4): 545-9.
6. Akashia AE, Francischone CE, Tokutsune E, da Silva W Jr. Effect of different types of temporary cements on the tensile strength and marginal adaptation of crowns on implants. J Adhes Dent 2002; 4(4): 309-15.
7. Bernal G, Okamura M, Muñoz CA. The effect of abutment taper, length and cement type on esistance to dislodgement of cementretained, implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont 2003; 12(2): 111-5.
8. Singer A, Serfaty V. Cement retained implant supported fixed partial dentures: A 6 month to 3 year follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996; 11(5): 645-9.
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(1): 28-35.
10. Shillingburg HT, Sather DA. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Pub; 1997. p. 313.
11. Cakan U, Gultekin P, Guncu MB, Canay S. Effect of screw access channel filling materials on uniaxial retentive force of cement-retained implant restorations. Aust Dent J 2014; 59(1): 65-9.
12. Howe L, Palmer P, Barrett V. Advanced restorative techniques. Br Dent J 1999; 187(11): 593-600.
13. Chu KM, Tredwin CJ, Setchell DJ, Hems E. Effect of screw hole filling on retention of implant crowns. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2005; 13(4): 154-8.
14. Kent DK, Koka S, Froeschle ML. Retention of cemented implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont 1997; 6(3): 193-6.
15. Saboury A, Bamdadian T, Mahshid M. The effects of abutment screw access channel filling material and its amount on resistance to dislodgement of cement retained implant-supported crowns. J Dent Sch Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci 2010; 29(5): 352-7. [In Persian].
16. Koka S, Ewoldsen NO, Dana CL, Beatty MW. The effect of cementing agent and technique on the retention of a CeraOne gold cylinder: a pilot study. Implant Dent 1995; 4(1): 32-5.
17. Tabbakhian G, Nouri A. Effect of different temporary cements on retention of crowns cemented on one piece abutments with two different lengths. J Mashhad Dent Sch 2012; 36(3): 223-30. [In Persian].
18. Hafezeqoran A, Koodarian R, Seyedan K. The effect of abutment screw access channel filling material on resistance to dislodgement of cement retained implant supported crowns. J Dent Sch Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci 2009; 27(1): 13-7. [In Persian].
19. Emms M, Treswin 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(1): 3-9.
20. Gillson TD, Myers GE. Clinical studies of dental cements. 3. Seven zinc oxide-eugenol cements used for temporarily cementing completed restorations. J Dent Res 1970; 49(1): 14-20.
21. Pan YH, Ramp LC, Lin CK, Liu PR. Retention and leakage of implant supported restorations luted with provisional cement: A pilot study. J Oral Rehabil 2007; 34(3): 206-12.
22. Bayindir F, Akyil MS, Bayindir YZ. Efeect of eugenol and Non-eugenol containing temporary cement on permanenet cement retention and microhardness of cured composite resin. Dent Mater J 2003; 22(4): 592-9.
23. Millstein PL, Nathanson D. Effect of eugenol and eugenol cements on cured composite resin. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 50(2): 211-5.
)