Retention of Implant Supported Metal Crowns Cemented with Different Luting Agents: A Comparative Invitro Study

An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Various Luting Cements on the Retention of Implant-Supported Metal Crowns

Background and objective Cement-retained prostheses have replaced screw-retained prostheses as the preferred restoration in recent years in order to overcome the latter's limitations. In this study, four different luting cements were compared to evaluate their efficacy on the retention of cement-based metal crowns to implant abutments. Materials and methods In the right and left first molar regions, four implant analogs (Internal Hex, Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd., Tel-Aviv, Israel) were screwed into epoxy resin casts (Araldite CY 230-1 IN, India) that were positioned perpendicular to the cast's plane. Four metal copings were created and cemented. Group A: polycarboxylate cement (DUR) (DurelonTM, 3M Espe, St. Paul, MN); Group B: PANAVIA™ F 2.0 dual-cure resin cement (Kuraray America, Inc., New York, NY); Group C: resin-modified glass ionomer (3M™ RelyX™ Luting, 3M Espe); and Group D: non-eugenol temporary resin cement (Kerr-Temp, KaVo Kerr, Brea, CA) were used to cement crowns. To check the retention capacity, samples were put through a pull-out test on an Instron universal testing machine (TSI‑Tecsol, Bengaluru, India) with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Each coping's de-cementing load was noted, and average values for every sample were computed and statistically analyzed. Results The findings demonstrated that non-eugenol temporary resin implant cement has the lowest retention value at 138.256 N, followed by resin-modified glass ionomer cement at 342.063 N, polycarboxylate luting cement at 531.362 N, and resin cement at 674.065 N. The average difference in retentive strength across all four groups was statistically very significant (p=0.001). Conclusion Based on our findings, non-eugenol temporary resin implant cement enables simple retrievability of the prosthesis in the event of a future failure and is appropriate for implant restorations with cement retention. Also, cements made of polycarboxylate and resin have the highest retention values.

Application of Semipermanent Cements and Conventional Cement with Modified Cementing Technique in Dental Implantology

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of artificial ageing on the retention force of original semipermanent cements, as well as the possibility of using conventional cements for semipermanent cementation with adequate modification of the cementing protocol.

Materials and methods

Forty CoCrMo alloy crowns were divided in four groups (each group n=10) and fixed with two semipermanent cements (resin-based and glass ionomer-based cements) and one conventional (zinc phosphate), using conventional and modified cementation techniques on titanium abutments. The samples were stored in humid conditions for 24 hours at 37°C and subjected to thermocycling (500 cycles) and mechanical cyclic loading (7 days, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months function simulation). The cast crowns were removed and the retention force was recorded.

Results

The highest initial retention force measured was for zinc-phosphate cement - conventional cementing (198,00±61,90 N), followed in descending order by zinc-phosphate cement - modified cementing technique (152,00±45,42 N), long term temporary cement - GC Fuji Temp LT (57,70±20,40 N), and semipermanent cement - Telio CS Cem Implant (56,10±18,68 N). After 12 months, the highest retention force measured was for zinc-phosphate cement - conventional cementing (88, 90±14, 45 N), followed by zinc-phosphate cement - modified cementing (48, 15±14,41N), semipermanent cement GC Fuji Temp LT (16,55±3,88 N) and Telio CS Cem Implant (15,55±5,52 N).

Conclusions

Zinc-phosphate cement - modified cementing technique and original semipermanent cements can be recommended for conditional permanent cementing of implant supported crowns.

Clinical relevance

The use of semipermanenet cements and zinc-phosphate cement - modified cementing technique provides a predictable retrievability of implant-supported crowns.

An in vitro study to compare the influence of newer luting cements on retention of cement-retained implant-supported prosthesis

Purpose:

The study was conducted to evaluate the retentiveness of specifically formulated implant cements and compare its retentiveness with a commonly used noneugenol zinc oxide luting cement and also to assess the influence of abutment height on the retentiveness of these cements.

Materials and Methods:

A master stainless steel mold was used to mount snappy abutment-implant analog complex in acrylic resin. A total of six snappy abutments (Nobel Biocare^®) of 4 mm and 5.5 mm height with their analogs were used. A total of 66 ceramill^® Sintron metal copings fabricated using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing system and divided into six groups (n = 11) according to the height (three 4 mm abutment and three 5.5 mm abutment). The cements that were compared were a Noneugenol zinc oxide provisional cement (Temp-Bond™ NE), a Noneugenol temporary resin cement (Premier^® Implant Cement) and a resin based acrylic urethane cement (Implalute^® Implant Cement). After cementation samples were immersed in artificial saliva for 7 days and subjected to a pull-out test using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The load required to de-cement each coping was recorded and analyzed using one-way ANOVA, post hoc multiple comparison, and independent t-test.

Results:

Noneugenol temporary resin cement had the highest tensile strength followed by noneugenol zinc oxide cement and the least retentive strength was observed in resin-based acrylic urethane cement.

Conclusion:

The results suggest that noneugenol temporary resin cement may be considered as a better choice for cementation of implant prosthesis, as it has shown to have better mechanical properties.