Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science (구강회복응용과학지)

Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion (대한턱관절교합학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Influence of varying cement types and abutment heights on pull-off force of zirconia restorations

시멘트의 종류 및 임플란트 지대주 높이가 지르코니아 수복물의 제거력에 미치는 영향

  • Yeong-Jun Jung (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Yu-Lee Kim (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Ji-Hye Jung (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Nae-Un Kang (Department of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Hyun-Jun Kong (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University)
  • 정영준 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 김유리 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 정지혜 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 강내운 (원광대학교 창의공과대학 기계공학과) ;
  • 공현준 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2024.02.16
  • Accepted : 2024.04.16
  • Published : 2024.05.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate Ti-base abutment's three different heights and three different cement types on the pull-off force of zirconia-based restorations. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 fixture lab analogs were embedded in auto polymerizing resin bloack. 90 Ti-base abutments heights of 3 mm, 5 mm, 7 mm were scanned and zirconia restoration were prepared from scanned files. Zirconia restoration were cemented with three different types of cements (temporary, semi-permanent, permanent) following manufacturer's instructions. All 90 specimens were placed and tested in a universal testing machine for pull-out testing. Retention was measured by recording the force at load drop. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis test for detecting whether there are any statistical significance along cement types or abutment heights. After that, Mann-Whitney test was used for figuring out differences regarding abutment height and the comparison between 3 cements. Results: Temp bond showed significantly lower pull-off force compared to Fujicem regardless of any abutment height. However, there were significant differences between Cem-implant and Fujicem in abutment height of 3 mm and 7 mm, but there was no significant difference in 5 mm. Temp bond and Cem-implant had significant differences only in abutment height of 5 mm. Conclusion: Although Ti-base abutment height did not influenced zirconia restorations' retentiveness, cement types showed significant differences.

목적: 본 연구의 목적은 세 가지 높이를 가진 티타늄 베이스 임플란트 지대주에서 세 종류의 시멘트가 지르코니아 수복물에서 가지는 제거력을 비교하는 것이다. 연구 재료 및 방법:. 90개의 직경 4.0 mm 임플란트 아날로그가 레진 블록에 식립되었다. 이후 3 mm, 5 mm, 7 mm의 높이를 가지도록 임플란트 지대주를 30개씩 제작하였고, 각 지대주를 스캔하여 지르코니아 수복물 시편을 제작하였다. 임시 시멘트(TB), 반영구 시멘트(CI), 영구 시멘트(FC)를 각자 제조사의 지시에 따라 지대주에 접착하였다. 제작된 90개의 시편은 만능시험기에서 제거력을 시험하였으며, 모든 제거력은 부하량이 하락하기 직전 가장 높은 값에서 측정되었다. 통계 분석은 지대주의 높이, 시멘트의 종류에 대해 각각 Kruskal-Wallis test (P = 0.05) 후 Mann-Whitney U test (P = 0.0167)로 사후 검정 시행하였다. 결과: 임플란트 지대주의 높이에 상관없이 TB에 비해 FC의 제거력이 높았다. CI와 FC간에는 3 mm와 7 mm에서는 유의미한 차이가 있었으나 5 mm에서는 유의미한 차이가 없었다. TB와 CI간에는 5 mm에서만 유의미한 차이가 있었다. 결론: 시멘트의 종류는 지르코니아 수복물의 제거력에 유의미한 영향을 끼쳤으나, 임플란트 지대주의 높이는 유의미한 영향을 주지 않았다.

Keywords

References

  1. Rammelsberg P, Lorenzo Bermejo J, Kappel S, Meyer A, Zenthofer A. Long-term performance of implant-supported metal-ceramic and all-ceramic single crowns. J Prosthodont Res 2020;64:332-9. 
  2. Hjalmarsson L, Gheisarifar M, Jemt T. A systematic review of survival of single implants as presented in longitudinal studies with a follow-up of at least 10 years. Eur J Oral Implantol 2016;9 Suppl 1:S155-62. 
  3. Goodacre BJ, Goodacre SE, Goodacre CJ. Prosthetic complications with implant prostheses (2001-2017). Eur J Oral Implantol 2018;11 Suppl 1:S27-36. 
  4. Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:29-35. 
  5. Lee A, Okayasu K, Wang HL. Screw-versus cement-retained implant restorations: current concepts. Implant Dent 2010;19:8-15. 
  6. Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: A critical review. Int J Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:719-28. 
  7. Wittneben JG, Joda T, Weber HP, Bragger U. Screw retained vs. cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Periodontol 2000 2017;73:141-51. 
  8. Priest G. Virtual-designed and computer-milled implant abutments. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63(9 Suppl 2):22-32. 
  9. Okuyama JY, de Brito RB, Franca FMG. Aluminum oxide sandblasting of hexagonal coping and abutment: influence on retention and marginal leakage using temporary cements. Implant Dent 2016;25:394-9. 
  10. Korsch M, Walther W. Retrospective analysis of loosening of cement-retained vs screw-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions. Quintessence Int 2015;46:583-9. 
  11. Gultekin P, Gultekin BA, Aydin M, Yalcin S. Cement selection for implant-supported crowns fabricated with different luting space settings. J Prosthodont 2013;22:112-9. 
  12. Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Bogacki MT, Tietge JD. Use of luting agents with an implant system: Part I. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:737-41. 
  13. Sheets JL, Wilcox C, Wilwerding T. Cement selection for cement-retained crown technique with dental implants. J Prosthodont 2008;17:92-6. 
  14. Misch CE, Goodacre CJ, Finley JM, Misch CM, Marinbach M, Dabrowsky T, English CE, Kois JC, Cronin RJ Jr. Consensus conference panel report: crown-height space guidelines for implant dentistry-part 1. Implant Dent 2005;14:312-8. 
  15. Saleh Saber F, Abolfazli N, Nuroloyuni S, Khodabakhsh S, Bahrami M, Nahidi R, Zeighami S. Effect of abutment height on retention of single cement-retained, wide- and narrow-platform implant-supported restorations. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2012;6:98-102. 
  16. Silva CEP, Soares S, Machado CM, Bergamo ETP, Coelho PG, Witek L, Ramalho IS, Jalkh EBB, Bonfante EA. Effect of CAD/CAM abutment height and cement type on the retention of zirconia crowns. Implant Dent 2018;27:582-7. 
  17. Muller L, Rauch A, Reissmann DR, Schierz O. Impact of cement type and abutment height on pulloff force of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate crowns on titanium implant stock abutments: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2021;21:592. 
  18. Volkmann H, Rauch A, Koenig A, Schierz O. Pull-off force of four different implant cements between zirconia crowns and titanium implant abutments in two different abutment heights. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2022;42:e67-74. 
  19. Dahne F, Meissner H, Boning K, Arnold C, Gutwald R, Prause E. Retention of different temporary cements tested on zirconia crowns and titanium abutments in vitro. Int J Implant Dent 2021;7:62. 
  20. Mehl C, Harder S, Wolfart M, Kern M, Wolfart S. Retrievability of implant-retained crowns following cementation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:1304-11. 
  21. Nguyen O, Lee SJ, Lee JD. Influence of varying titanium base abutment heights on retention of zirconia restorations: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2023;130:604.e1-5. 
  22. Satpathy M, Pham H, Shah S. Performance of dental cements used for bonding zirconia crowns with titanium implants embedded in an innovative bilayered artificial bone. Ceramics 2023;6:651-63. 
  23. Zahoui A, Bergamo ET, Marun MM, Silva KP, Coelho PG, Bonfante EA. Cementation protocol for bonding zirconia crowns to titanium base CAD/CAM abutments. Int J Prosthodont 2020;33:527-35. 
  24. Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23 Suppl 6:2-21. 
  25. Gultekin P, Gultekin BA, Aydin M, Yalcin S. Cement selection for implant-supported crowns fabricated with different luting space settings. J Prosthodont 2013;22:112-9. 
  26. Emms M, Tredwin CJ, Setchell DJ, Moles DR. The effects of abutment wall height, platform size, and screw access channel filling method on resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont 2007;16:3-9. 
  27. Safari S, Hosseini Ghavam F, Amini P, Yaghmaei K. Effects of abutment diameter, luting agent type, and re-cementation on the retention of implant-supported CAD/CAM metal copings over short abutments. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10:1-7. 
  28. Sahu N, Lakshmi N, Azhagarasan NS, Agnihotri Y, Rajan M, Hariharan R. Comparison of the effect of implant abutment surface modifications on retention of implant-supported restoration with a polymer based cement. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8:239-42.