LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 27 , Issue 5
September/October 2012

Pages 1106–1115


Influence of Abutment Height and Thermocycling on Retrievability of Cemented Implant-Supported Crowns

Christian Mehl, Dr Med Dent/Sönke Harder, Dr Med Dent/Ahoo Shahriari/Martin Steiner, Dr Rer Nat/Matthias Kern, Prof Dr Med Dent


PMID: 23057023

Purpose: To evaluate the influence of abutment height and thermocycling on the retrievability of cemented implant crowns. Materials and Methods: Ninety tapered titanium abutments (6 degree taper, 4.3 mm diameter, 8.5 mm height) were shortened to 2, 3, or 4 mm, respectively. Ninety crowns were designed and manufactured using CAD/CAM techniques and laser sintering a CoCr alloy. The crowns were cemented either with a glass-ionomer, a polycarboxylate, or a composite resin cement followed by 3-day storage in demineralized water without thermocycling or 150-day storage with 37,500 thermal cycles. The force (in N) and the number of attempts needed to remove the crowns using a universal testing machine (UTM) or a clinically used removal device (Coronaflex) were recorded. Statistical analysis at a level of significance of P ≤ .05 was conducted using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (Coronaflex) and three-way and two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s HSD post hoc tests, and t tests (UTM). Results: Regardless of whether the crowns were retrieved with Coronaflex or UTM, the crowns cemented with the glass-ionomer cement were significantly easier to retrieve followed by the polycarboxylate and the resin cement, both of which differed significantly from each other (P ≤ .001). With both retrieval methods, the cement, abutment height, and thermocycling were significantly influential (P ≤ .0001). Significant interactions could be found for retrieval with UTM between the abutment height and thermocycling, between the cement and thermocycling, and between all three factors (P ≤ .05). Conclusions: Glass-ionomer cement may be used for retrievable cementation of implant restorations, whereas polycarboxylate cement and especially composite resin cement should be used for a nonretrievable permanent cementation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1106–1115

Key words: abutment, cement, crown, implant, retention, retrievability


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help