Journal of Isfahan Dental School

Assessment of the Effect of Abutment Size on the Tensile Strength of Crowns Cemented on One-Piece Abutments

Document Type : مقاله‌های پژوهشی

Authors

1 Postgraduate Student, Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction: Abutment dimension is one of the most important factors affecting the retention of implant-supported restorations. Thick abutments have the advantages of providing a thicker outer body wall and more surface area for retention. This study aimed to determine the effect of abutment dimension on the retention of implant-supported restorations.
Materials & Methods: Forty implant analogs were mounted in auto-polymerizing acrylic resin blocks with the use of a surveyor in this in vitro study. Forty titanium abutments (7 and 5.5 mm in height, and 3.5 and 4.3 mm in width) were placed on each implant analog using 30-N.cm torque. The crowns were cemented with temporary cement. All the specimens were stored under 100% relative humidity at 37ºC for 48 h prior to testing. Each crown underwent a tensile force with increasing force in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 cm/minute, and the tensile strength was recorded (N). The data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA using SPSS 23.
Results: An increase in abutment height significantly increased the tensile strength (p value = 0.03). An increase in the abutment width decreased the tensile strength, but it was not significant (p value = 0.41). There was a direct and significant correlation between the abutment height-to-width ratio and restoration retention (r = 0.343, p value = 0.01). There was a direct but poor correlation between the abutments total surface (abutment height*abutment diameter) and retention (r = 0.185, p value = 0.127).
Conclusion: Increased abutment height and height-to-width ratio had a more positive effect on retention than increased total surface area provided by increased width.
Key words: Abutment, Implant, Provisional cement, Restoration, Tensile strength. 

1. Misch CE. Dental implant prosthetics. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2014.
2. Kokubo Y, Kano T, Tsumita M, Sakurai S, Itayama A, Fukushima S. Retention of Zirconia copings on zirconia implants abutments cemented with provisional luting agents. J Oral Rehabil 2010; 37(1): 48-53.
3. Misch CE. The implant quality scale: A clinical assessment of the health -disease continuum. Oral Health 1998; 88(7): 15-20, 23-5.
4. 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(5): 1102-7.
5. Attard NJ, Zarb GA. Implant prosthodontic management of partially edentulous patients missing posterior teeth: the Toronto experience. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89(4): 352-9.
6. Taylor TD, Agar JR. Twenty years of progress in implant prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 88(1): 89-95.
7. Hafez Ghoran A, Kordydarian R, Morshedi K. Effect of different types of temporary cements on the tensile strength of implant supported crowns. J Dent Sch Shahid Beheshti Univ Med Sci 2009; 27(2): 53-9. [In Persian].
8. 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.
9. Tabakhian GR, 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].
10. 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(6): 638-44.
11. 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(1): 36-41.
12. Covey DA, Kent DK, 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(3): 344-8.
13. Kent DK, Koka S, Froeschle ML. Retention of cemented implant supported restorations. J Prosthodont 1997; 6(3): 193-6.
14. Darveniza M, Basford KE, Meek J, Stevens L. The effects of surface roughness and surface area on the retention of crowns luted with zinc phosphate cement. Aust Dent J 1987; 32(6): 446-57.
15. Kaufmann EG, Coelho DH, Colin L. Factors influencing the retention of cemented gold castings. J Prosthet Dent 1961; 11(3): 487-502.
16. Maxwell AW, Blank LW, Pelleu GB Jr .Effect of crown preparation height on the retention and resistance of gold castings. Gen Dent 1990; 38(3): 200-2.
17. 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(2): 111-5.
18. 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(1): 3-9.
19. Abbo B, Razzoog ME, Vivas J, Sierraalta M. Resistance to dislodgement of zirconia copings cemented onto titanium abutments of different heights. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 99(1): 25-9.
20. Lee DH, Suh KW, Ryu JJ. Comparision of retentive forces of temporary cements and abutment height used with implant-supported prostheses. J Kor Acad Prosthodont 2008; 43(3): 280-9.
Journal of Isfahan Dental School
Volume 16, Issue 2 - Serial Number 2
June 2020
Pages 203-209