Effects of abutment diameter, luting agent type, and re-cementation on the retention of implant-supported CAD/CAM metal copings over short abutments
- Author:
Sina SAFARI
1
;
Fereshteh HOSSEINI GHAVAM
;
Parviz AMINI
;
Kaveh YAGHMAEI
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Implant-supported restorations; Abutment geometry; CAD/CAM coping; Luting agent; Re-cementation
- MeSH: Cementation; Dental Cements; Resin Cements
- From:The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 2018;10(1):1-7
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: 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.
