Retention of Implant Supported Metal Crowns Cemented with Different Luting Agents: A Comparative Invitro Study
Introduction: To overcome limitations of screw-retained prostheses, cement-retained prostheses have become the restoration of choice now a days. Selection of the cement hence becomes very critical to maintain retrievability of the prostheses. Aim: The purpose of this study was to assess and comp...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited
2016-04-01
|
Series: | Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/7635/15912_CE(RA1)_F(T)_PF1(EKAK)_PFA(AK)_PF2(PAG).pdf |
Summary: | Introduction: To overcome limitations of screw-retained
prostheses, cement-retained prostheses have become the
restoration of choice now a days. Selection of the cement hence
becomes very critical to maintain retrievability of the prostheses.
Aim: The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the
retention of base metal crowns cemented to implant abutments
with five different luting cements.
Materials and Methods: Ten implant analogs were secured in
five epoxy resin casts perpendicular to the plane of cast in right
first molar and left first molar region and implant abutments
were screwed. Total of 100 metal copings were fabricated and
cemented. The cements used were zinc phosphate, resin modified
glass ionomer cement, resin cement, non-eugenol acrylic based
temporary implant cement & non-eugenol temporary resin cement
implant cement. Samples were subjected to a pull-out test using
an Instron universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of
0.5mm/min. The load required to de-cement each coping was
recorded and mean values for each group calculated and put to
statistical analysis.
Results: The results showed that resin cement has the highest
retention value 581.075N followed by zinc phosphate luting
cement 529.48N, resin modified glass ionomer cement 338.095
N, non-eugenol acrylic based temporary implant cement 249.045
N and non-eugenol temporary resin implant cement 140.49N.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of study, it was concluded
that non-eugenol acrylic based temporary implant cement and
non-eugenol temporary resin implant cement allow for easy
retrievability of the prosthesis in case of any failure in future. These
are suitable for cement retained implant restorations. The results
provide a possible preliminary ranking of luting agents based on
their ability to retain an implant-supported prosthesis and facilitate
easy retrieval. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2249-782X 0973-709X |