The Selection Criteria of Temporary or Permanent Luting Agents in Implant-supported Prostheses: in Vitro Study

Overview

Journal J Adv Prosthodont

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2016 May 4

PMID 27141259

Citations 8

Authors

Angel Alvarez-Arenal

Ignacio Gonzalez-Gonzalez

Hector deLlanos-Lanchares

Aritza Brizuela-Velasco

Joseba Ellacuria-Echebarria

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: The use of temporary or permanent cements in fixed implant-supported prostheses is under discussion. The objective was to compare the retentiveness of one temporary and two permanent cements after cyclic compressive loading.

Materials And Methods: The working model was five solid abutments screwed to five implant analogs. Thirty Cr-Ni alloy copings were randomized and cemented to the abutments with one temporary (resin urethane-based) or two permanent (resin-modified glass ionomer, resin-composite) cements. The retention strength was measured twice: once after the copings were cemented and again after a compressive cyclic loading of 100 N at 0.72 Hz (100,000 cycles).

Results: Before loading, the retention strength of resin composite was 75% higher than the resin-modified glass ionomer and 2.5 times higher than resin urethanebased cement. After loading, the retentiveness of the three cements decreased in a non-uniform manner. The greatest percentage of retention loss was shown by the temporary cement and the lowest by the permanent resin composite. However, the two permanent cements consistently show high retention values.

Conclusion: The higher the initial retention of each cement, the lower the percentage of retention loss after compressive cyclic loading. After loading, the resin urethane-based cement was the most favourable cement for retrieving the crowns and resin composite was the most favourable cement to keep them in place.

Citing Articles

Comparison of marginal leakage and retentive strength of implant-supported milled zirconia and cobalt-chromium copings cemented with different temporary cements.

Hendi A, Falahchai M, Sigaroodi S, Asli H Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2024; 20:117.

PMID: 38169570 PMC: 10758385.

Bonding Strength of Various Luting Agents between Zirconium Dioxide Crowns and Titanium Bonding Bases after Long-Term Artificial Chewing.

Bagegni A, Borchers J, Beisel S, Patzelt S, Vach K, Kohal R Materials (Basel). 2023; 16(23).

PMID: 38068058 PMC: 10707355. DOI: 10.3390/ma16237314.

An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Various Luting Cements on the Retention of Implant-Supported Metal Crowns.

Mehta S, Kesari A, Tomar M, Sharma U, Sagar P, Nakum P Cureus. 2023; 15(7):e41691.

PMID: 37575823 PMC: 10413795. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.41691.

An Trial to Estimate the Retention Ability of Luting Agents Utilized with Dental Implant-Supported Prosthesis.

Ahsan A, Khushboo B, Kumar A, Kumari S, Poojary B, Dixit A J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022; 14(Suppl 1):S541-S544.

PMID: 36110724 PMC: 9469460. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_150_22.

Application of Semipermanent Cements and Conventional Cement with Modified Cementing Technique in Dental Implantology.

Veselinovic V, Marin S, Tatic Z, Trtic N, Dolic O, Adamovic T Acta Stomatol Croat. 2022; 55(4):367-379.

PMID: 35001932 PMC: 8734451. DOI: 10.15644/asc55/4/4.

References

Nissan J, Narobai D, Gross O, Ghelfan O, Chaushu G . Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26(5):1102-7. View

Wolfart M, Wolfart S, Kern M . Retention forces and seating discrepancies of implant-retained castings after cementation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006; 21(4):519-25. View

Clayton G, Driscoll C, Hondrum S . The effect of luting agents on the retention and marginal adaptation of the CeraOne implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997; 12(5):660-5. View

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(4):343-8. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130401.x. View

Cano-Batalla J, Soliva-Garriga J, Campillo-Funollet M, Munoz-Viveros C, 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(1):36-41. View

Kent D, Koka S, Froeschle M . Retention of cemented implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont. 1998; 6(3):193-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.1997.tb00090.x. View

Michalakis K, Pissiotis A, Hirayama H . Cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15(4):545-9. View

Maeyama H, Sawase T, Jimbo R, Kamada K, Suketa N, Fukui J . Retentive strength of metal copings on prefabricated abutments with five different cements. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005; 7(4):229-34. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00068.x. View

Kaar D, Oshida Y, Andres C, Barco M, Platt J . The effect of fatigue damage on the force required to remove a restoration in a cement-retained implant system. J Prosthodont. 2006; 15(5):289-94. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00126.x. View

10.

Pan Y, Ramp L, Lin C, Liu P . Comparison of 7 luting protocols and their effect on the retention and marginal leakage of a cement-retained dental implant restoration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006; 21(4):587-92. View

11.

Michalakis K, Pissiotis A, Kang K, Hirayama H, Garefis P, 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(4):569-74. View

12.

Alfaro M, Papazoglou E, McGlumphy E, Holloway J . Short-term retention properties of cements for retrievable implant-supported prostheses. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2004; 12(1):33-7. View

13.

Pan Y, Ramp L, Lin C, Liu P . Retention and leakage of implant-supported restorations luted with provisional cement: a pilot study. J Oral Rehabil. 2007; 34(3):206-12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01673.x. View

14.

Hallgren C, Sawase T, Ortengren U, Wennerberg A . Histomorphometric and mechanical evaluation of the bone-tissue response to implants prepared with different orientation of surface topography. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002; 3(4):194-203. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00141.x. View

15.

Ongthiemsak C, Mekayarajjananonth T, Winkler S, Boberick K . The effect of compressive cyclic loading on retention of a temporary cement used with implants. J Oral Implantol. 2005; 31(3):115-20. DOI: 10.1563/1548-1336(2005)31[115:TEOCCL]2.0.CO;2. View

16.

Dudley J, Richards L, Abbott J . Retention of cast crown copings cemented to implant abutments. Aust Dent J. 2009; 53(4):332-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00075.x. View

17.

Vigolo P, Givani A, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G . Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 4-year prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19(2):260-5. View

18.

Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Ebrahimi M, Savabi G . Retentiveness of implant-supported metal copings using different luting agents. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2012; 9(1):13-8. PMC: 3283971. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.92921. View

19.

Squier R, Agar J, Duncan J, Taylor T . Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002; 16(6):793-8. View

20.

Sheets J, Wilcox C, Wilwerding T . Cement selection for cement-retained crown technique with dental implants. J Prosthodont. 2007; 17(2):92-96. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00262.x. View