Comparison of flow conditions of adhesives and retention force of restorations among four cement?retained methods of implant?supported fixed prostheses
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1002?0098.2019.07.007
- VernacularTitle:种植固定修复四种粘接固位形式的粘接剂流动状态及修复体固位力的比较
- Author:
Bin SUN
1
;
Yujie LI
;
Zhaoli MENG
;
Qiao CAO
;
Lulu DUAN
;
Nan YAO
;
Qin ZHOU
Author Information
1. 西安交通大学口腔医学院陕西省牙颌疾病临床研究中心710004
- Keywords:
Immobilization;
Denture,partial,fixed;
Glass ionomer cements;
Dental implantation;
Computational fluid dynamics
- From:
Chinese Journal of Stomatology
2019;54(7):469-474
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the effect on the flow conditions of adhesives and the retention force of restorations among different cement?retained methods of implant?supported fixed prostheses. Methods Four common cement?retained methods were selected, including the occlusal hole for screw access (OH), the lingual hole for adhesives overflow (LH), the resin replica for titanium abutment (RR), and the traditional cement?retained method (the control group). The adhesive used in this study was resin?modified glass ionomer cement. The two?dimensional analysis models of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) were established. The flow conditions of adhesives in the adhesion process was analyzed by the CFD analysis. The internal filling ratio and the amount of neck overflow of adhesives below the edge of the prosthesis were calculated. Ten zirconia prostheses in each group were processed and cemented. The retention force was examined by mechanical tensile experiments in vitro . Results The CFD analysis showed the internal filling ratio of adhesives from high to low was the LH group, the OH group, the RR group and the control group. The amount of neck overflow of adhesives below the edge of the prosthesis from less to more was the RR group, the OH group, the LH group and the control group. The retention force was (240.7± 33.9) N in the control group, (278.2±59.1) N in the OH group, (292.9±47.9) N in the LH group, and (262.8± 59.4) N in the RR group. There was a statistically significant difference in the retention force between the LH group and the control group (P=0.029). There was no significant difference among the other groups (P> 0.05). Conclusions The modified cement?retained methods can effectively reduce the amount of neck overflow of adhesives, and improve the filling condition of adhesive in the adhesive clearance to ensure the retention force of the prostheses. Clinically, the appropriate modified cement?retained method should be selected according to the three?dimensional position of the implant and the position of prosthetic margin.
