OR Foundation
  • About
    • Oral Reconstruction Foundation
      • Purpose and Mission
      • Foundation Board
      • Scientific Working Group
      • Education Working Group
      • History
      • Career
      • News
  • Granting
  • Publications
    • Grant Publications
    • Consensus Publications
  • Awards
    • Research Award
      • Awards 2018/2019
      • Award 2016/2017
      • Award 2014/2015
      • Award 2012/2013
      • Award 2010/2011
      • Award 2008/2009
    • Poster Competition
      • Competition 2024
      • Competition 2018
      • Competition 2016
      • Competition 2014
      • Competition 2012
  • Education
    • International Symposia
    • Global Symposia
    • National Symposia
    • Education Courses
    • Webinars
  • Contact
Select Page

Retrievability of implant-supported zirconia restorations cemented on zirconia abutments.


Lennartz A, Dohmen A, Bishti S, Fischer H, Wolfart S.

J Prosthet Dent 2018 May 25. pii: S0022-3913(18)30086-6. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.011. [Epub ahead of print] (Grant CF21006)

Abstract

Objective:

Retrievability of implant-supported restorations is important. Data are lacking for cemented zirconia crowns on zirconia abutments.

Purpose:

The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the influence of different cements and marginal discrepancy on the retrievability of implant-supported zirconia crowns. Furthermore, the influence of thermocycling on retrievability was evaluated.

Material and methods:

Thirty tapered Camlog zirconia abutments (6-degree taper, 6×4.3 mm) were used. Thirty zirconia crowns with 3 different marginal cementation discrepancies (70, 130, 190 μm) were fabricated by using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology. Five cements for interim or semidefinitive cementation were used: eugenol-free zinc oxide (Freegenol) and acrylurethane (ImProv) and 3 different composite resin cements (X-Pand Implant, Dyna Implant, Telio CS Cem Implant). Specimens underwent either 3-day storage in sodium chloride or thermocycling (10 000 cycles). Crowns were removed by using a universal testing machine (UTM) and a clinical removal device. Data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA and the Scheffé test (α=.05).

Results:

Thermocycling decreased the retention force significantly (P<.001). Marginal discrepancy (70 to 190 μm) was not significantly influential on retrievability (P>.05). Therefore, groups were pooled according to the factor of marginal discrepancy. The mean retention force using the UTM after 3-day storage and thermocycling was as follows: Freegenol, 235 ±42 N (thermocycling, 29 ±9 N); Improv, 110 ±50 N (thermocycling, 35 ±38 N); Telio CS, 104 ±17 N (thermocycling, 6 ±10 N); Dyna implant, 61 ±17 N (thermocycling, 1 ±1 N); and X-Pand, 50 ±16 N (thermocycling, 2 ±2 N).

Conclusion:

Retention forces of the tested cements were significantly different and decreased considerably after thermocycling. Marginal cementation discrepancy between 70 and 190 μm did not influence retrievability.

SOURCE

  • Facebook
  • X
  • Instagram
  • RSS

© Oral Reconstruction Foundation 2026 | Imprint | Disclaimer | Privacy | Sitemap | Professional websites Basel