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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mehta, Surbhi, Kesari, Anubhav, Tomar, Mohit, Sharma, Urvashi, Sagar, Preeti, Nakum, Pooja, Rao, Kumuda
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