Badawi, H., Aboushady, Y., Azer, A. (2015). Effect of Circumferential and Axial Grooves on the Retention of Provisionally Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Crowns (In Vitro Study). Alexandria Dental Journal, 40(2), 208-218. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2015.59154
H Badawi; Y Aboushady; A Azer. "Effect of Circumferential and Axial Grooves on the Retention of Provisionally Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Crowns (In Vitro Study)". Alexandria Dental Journal, 40, 2, 2015, 208-218. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2015.59154
Badawi, H., Aboushady, Y., Azer, A. (2015). 'Effect of Circumferential and Axial Grooves on the Retention of Provisionally Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Crowns (In Vitro Study)', Alexandria Dental Journal, 40(2), pp. 208-218. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2015.59154
Badawi, H., Aboushady, Y., Azer, A. Effect of Circumferential and Axial Grooves on the Retention of Provisionally Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Crowns (In Vitro Study). Alexandria Dental Journal, 2015; 40(2): 208-218. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2015.59154
Effect of Circumferential and Axial Grooves on the Retention of Provisionally Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Crowns (In Vitro Study)
Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University. 2 Professor of Fixed Prosthodontics, Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry
Abstract
Introduction: Retention of provisionallycemented implant-supported restorations plays an important role in success of the treatment. Uncemented restorations may cause several problems such as restoration swallowing, increased bone loss and prosthesis failure. Therefore, suitable cement compromising between retention and retrievability as well as extra-means of abutment retention might be preferable for durable implant restorations. Objectives: This study introduced circumferential and axial grooves on implant abutments as retentive promoters and evaluated their effect on the retention of crown copings cemented to implant abutments with provisional luting cements. Materials and methods: Twenty straight titanium implant abutments were divided into 4 groups (n=5): without grooves, with 1 axial groove, with 2 circumferential grooves, and with 3 circumferential grooves. Twenty nickel chromium crown copings were fabricated to fit all 20 abutments. The copings were cemented to each group of abutments with non-eugenol provisional cement. After storage for 24 hours in 100% humidity at 37°C, specimens were subjected to 500 cycles of thermal cycling, then 5000 cycles of compressive load to simulate the thermal and mechanical stresses in the oral environment. Tensile strengths were conducted with a universal testing machine and tensile stresses were recorded in Newton. After the retention test, the copings and abutments were evaluated for cement failure mode with Stereoscopic Microscope. Collected data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s HSD tests (α=.05). Results: The mean tensile strength of the three circumferential grooves was significantly higher than the other groups (P<0.001) while there was no significant difference between the axial groove and control group (P=0.999). The cement failure mode was generally adhesive in nature, although some mixed failures were observed. Conclusion The surface modification of an implant abutment by means of circumferential grooves was found to be an effective method of improving the retention of crown copings cemented with non-eugenol cement.
2. Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Pavlos D, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18:719-28.
3. 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.
4. Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics. St. Louis: Elsevier-Mosby,2015:662−71.
6. Breeding, LC, Dixon, DL, Bogacki MT and Tietge, JD. Use of luting agents with an implant system: part I. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68: 737–41.
7. Heinemann, F., Mundt, T. &Biffar, R. Retrospective evaluation of temporary cemented tooth and implant supported fixed partial dentures. J CraniomaxillofacSurg 2006; 34: 86–90.
8. Kunt GE, Ceylan G, Yilmaz N, KÜçÜk BE. Luting agent effectiveness on implant crown retention. Int J Oral Impl CR 2011; 2:7-11.
9. Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Ebrahimi M, and Savabi G. Retentiveness of implant-supported metal copings using different luting agents. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012; 9: 13-8.
10. Jugdev J, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Lynch E. The effect of air abrasion of metal implant abutments on the tensile bond strength of three luting agents used to cement implant superstructures: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29:784-90.
11. Reddy SV, Reddy MSN, Reddy CR, Pithani P, Kumar Sr, Kulkarni G. The infuence of implant abutment surface roughness and the type of cement on retention of implant supported crowns. J ClinDiagn Res 2015; 9:ZC05-7.
12. Armellini D, Bilko S, Carmichael RP, von Fraunhofer JA. Screw-retained prosthesis for Straumannimplant sites with limited interocclusal clearance. J Prosthodont. 2006; 15:198-201.
13. Michalakis K , Pissiotis AL, Kang K, Hirayama H, Garefis PD, Petridis H. The effect of thermal cycling and air abrasion on cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007 ;22:569-74.
14. Kunt GE, Ceylan G, Yılmaz N. Effect of surface treatments on implant crown retention. J Dent Sci 2010;5:131−5.
15. de Campos TN, Adachi LK, Miashiro K, et al. Effect of surface topography of implant abutments on retention of cemented single-tooth crowns. Int J Periodont Res Dent 2010; 30: 409-13.
16. Kurt M, Külünk T, Ural C, Külünk Ş, Danişman Ş, Savaş S. The effect of different surface treatments on cement-retained implant-supported restorations. J Oral Implantol2013 ;39:44-51.
17. Rismanchian M, Davoudi A, Shadmehr E. Effect of Using Nano and Micro Airborne Abrasive Particles on Bond Strength of Implant Abutment to Prosthesis. Braz. Dent. J. 2015; 26:50-5.
18. Ganbarzadeh J, Nakhaei MR, Shiezadeh F, Abrisham SM. The Effect of Abutment Surface Roughness on the Retention of Implant-Supported Crowns Cemented with Provisional Luting Cement. J Dent Mater Tech 2012; 1: 6-10.
19. 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
20. Lee Dh, Suh Kw, Ryu JJ. Comparison of retentive forces of temporary cements and abutment height used with implant-supported prostheses. J korAcadProsthodont 2008; 43: 280-289.
21. Al Hamad KQ, Al Rashdan BA, Abu-Sitta EH. The effects of height and surface roughness of abutments and the type of cement on bond strength of cementretained implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; 22: 638–44.
22. Cano-Batalla J, Soliva-Garriga J, Campillo-Funollet M, Munoz-Viveros CA, Giner-Tarrida L. Influence of abutment height and surface roughness on in vitro retention of three luting agents. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:36-41.
23. 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.
24. Tan KM, Masri R, Driscoll CF, Limkangwalmongkol P, Romberg E. Effect of axial wall modification on the retention of cement-retained, implantsupported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:80-5.
25. Naik S, Tredwin CJ, Nesbit M, Setchell DJ, Moles DR. The effect of engaging the screw access channel of an implant abutment with a cement-retained restoration. J Prosthodont 2009;18:245-8.
26. Dudley JE, Richards LC, Abbott JR. Retention of cast crown copings cemented to implant abutments. Aust Dent J 2008; 53: 332-9.
27. Lewinstein I, Block L, Lehr Z, Ormianer Z and Matalon S. An in vitro assessment of circumferential grooves on the retention of cementretained implantsupported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2011;106:367-72.
28. Sahu N, Lakshmi N, Azhagarasan N.S, 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.JClinDiagn Res 2014:8; 239-42 .
29. Wolfart, M., Wolfart, S. and Kern M. Retention forces and seating discrepancies of implant retained castings after cementation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006; 21:519–25.
30. Mansour A, Ercoli C, Graser G, Tallents R, Moss M. Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13:343-8.
31. Alfaro MA, Papazoglou E, McGlumphy EA, Holloway JA. Short-term retention properties of cements for retrievable implant-supported prostheses. Eur J ProsthodontRestor Dent 2004; 12:33-7.
View on SCiNiTO
Top