Cargando…
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 cemen...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cureus
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10413795/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37575823 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.41691 |
_version_ | 1785087207827046400 |
---|---|
author | Mehta, Surbhi Kesari, Anubhav Tomar, Mohit Sharma, Urvashi Sagar, Preeti Nakum, Pooja Rao, Kumuda |
author_facet | Mehta, Surbhi Kesari, Anubhav Tomar, Mohit Sharma, Urvashi Sagar, Preeti Nakum, Pooja Rao, Kumuda |
author_sort | Mehta, Surbhi |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10413795 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Cureus |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104137952023-08-11 An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Various Luting Cements on the Retention of Implant-Supported Metal Crowns Mehta, Surbhi Kesari, Anubhav Tomar, Mohit Sharma, Urvashi Sagar, Preeti Nakum, Pooja Rao, Kumuda Cureus Dentistry 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. Cureus 2023-07-11 /pmc/articles/PMC10413795/ /pubmed/37575823 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.41691 Text en Copyright © 2023, Mehta et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Dentistry Mehta, Surbhi Kesari, Anubhav Tomar, Mohit Sharma, Urvashi Sagar, Preeti Nakum, Pooja Rao, Kumuda An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Various Luting Cements on the Retention of Implant-Supported Metal Crowns |
title | An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Various Luting Cements on the Retention of Implant-Supported Metal Crowns |
title_full | An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Various Luting Cements on the Retention of Implant-Supported Metal Crowns |
title_fullStr | An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Various Luting Cements on the Retention of Implant-Supported Metal Crowns |
title_full_unstemmed | An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Various Luting Cements on the Retention of Implant-Supported Metal Crowns |
title_short | An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Various Luting Cements on the Retention of Implant-Supported Metal Crowns |
title_sort | evaluation of the effectiveness of various luting cements on the retention of implant-supported metal crowns |
topic | Dentistry |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10413795/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37575823 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.41691 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mehtasurbhi anevaluationoftheeffectivenessofvariouslutingcementsontheretentionofimplantsupportedmetalcrowns AT kesarianubhav anevaluationoftheeffectivenessofvariouslutingcementsontheretentionofimplantsupportedmetalcrowns AT tomarmohit anevaluationoftheeffectivenessofvariouslutingcementsontheretentionofimplantsupportedmetalcrowns AT sharmaurvashi anevaluationoftheeffectivenessofvariouslutingcementsontheretentionofimplantsupportedmetalcrowns AT sagarpreeti anevaluationoftheeffectivenessofvariouslutingcementsontheretentionofimplantsupportedmetalcrowns AT nakumpooja anevaluationoftheeffectivenessofvariouslutingcementsontheretentionofimplantsupportedmetalcrowns AT raokumuda anevaluationoftheeffectivenessofvariouslutingcementsontheretentionofimplantsupportedmetalcrowns AT mehtasurbhi evaluationoftheeffectivenessofvariouslutingcementsontheretentionofimplantsupportedmetalcrowns AT kesarianubhav evaluationoftheeffectivenessofvariouslutingcementsontheretentionofimplantsupportedmetalcrowns AT tomarmohit evaluationoftheeffectivenessofvariouslutingcementsontheretentionofimplantsupportedmetalcrowns AT sharmaurvashi evaluationoftheeffectivenessofvariouslutingcementsontheretentionofimplantsupportedmetalcrowns AT sagarpreeti evaluationoftheeffectivenessofvariouslutingcementsontheretentionofimplantsupportedmetalcrowns AT nakumpooja evaluationoftheeffectivenessofvariouslutingcementsontheretentionofimplantsupportedmetalcrowns AT raokumuda evaluationoftheeffectivenessofvariouslutingcementsontheretentionofimplantsupportedmetalcrowns |