Cargando…

Effects of abutment diameter, luting agent type, and re-cementation on the retention of implant-supported CAD/CAM metal copings over short abutments

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of abutment diameter, cement type, and re-cementation on the retention of implant-supported CAD/CAM metal copings over short abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty abutments with two different diameters, the height of which was reduced to 3...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Safari, Sina, Hosseini Ghavam, Fereshteh, Amini, Parviz, Yaghmaei, Kaveh
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5829282/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29503708
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.1.1
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of abutment diameter, cement type, and re-cementation on the retention of implant-supported CAD/CAM metal copings over short abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty abutments with two different diameters, the height of which was reduced to 3 mm, were vertically mounted in acrylic resin blocks with matching implant analogues. The specimens were divided into 2 diameter groups: 4.5 mm and 5.5 mm (n=30). For each abutment a CAD/CAM metal coping was manufactured, with an occlusal loop. Each group was sub-divided into 3 sub-groups (n=10). In each subgroup, a different cement type was used: resin-modified glass-ionomer, resin cement and zinc-oxide-eugenol. After incubation and thermocycling, the removal force was measured using a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min. In zinc-oxide-eugenol group, after removal of the coping, the cement remnants were completely cleaned and the copings were re-cemented with resin cement and re-tested. Two-way ANOVA, post hoc Tukey tests, and paired t-test were used to analyze data (α=.05). RESULTS: The highest pulling force was registered in the resin cement group (414.8 N), followed by the re-cementation group (380.5 N). Increasing the diameter improved the retention significantly (P=.006). The difference in retention between the cemented and recemented copings was not statistically significant (P=.40). CONCLUSION: Resin cement provided retention almost twice as strong as that of the RMGI. Increasing the abutment diameter improved retention significantly. Re-cementation with resin cement did not exhibit any difference from the initial cementation with resin cement.