Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations 4/2013

01.05.2013 | Original Article

Factors determining the retentiveness of luting agents used with metal- and ceramic-based implant components

verfasst von: Cornelia Schiessl, Lina Schaefer, Christian Winter, Jan Fuerst, Martin Rosentritt, Florian Zeman, Michael Behr

Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Ausgabe 4/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the factors that determine the retentiveness of copings made of cobalt–chromium (CoCr)-alloy or zirconia luted with permanent (solid-body like) and provisional (viscous, elastic-body-like) luting agents.

Materials and methods

We manufactured titanium implant analogs with four-, six-, and eight-taper degrees and copings of CoCr-alloy and zirconia and luted the copings according to a standardized protocol. Samples were thermally cycled, and we investigated the various degrees of roughness of the copings’ inner surfaces as well as the various cement mixing ratios on the retentiveness. Copings were either pulled out slowly (by means of a universal testing machine) or knocked out quickly (using a CORONAflex crown replacement device).

Results

The highest level of retentiveness was achieved with a four-taper degree for polycarboxylates followed by zinc-oxide-phosphates and glass ionomers or composite cements. Provisional cements and composite cements containing a plastifier showed significantly lower retentiveness levels. The pull-out and knock-out tests showed a relationship between retentiveness level and taper degree. However, the influence of taper degree was reduced with higher taper degrees as well as with cements that do not set as a solid body due to ingredients such as oily liquids or plastifiers. Thermal cycling further reduced the retentiveness level of these cements. Higher degrees of roughness only improved the retention force of cements setting as a solid body. Mixing errors may alter retentiveness levels in an unpredictable manner. When used within the same group of cements, metal-alloy, and zirconia copings did not differ with regard to their level of retentiveness.

Conclusion

Copings made of metal-alloy and zirconia showed no different level of retentiveness when set onto titanium abutments fixed with permanent or provisional cements.

Clinical relevance

Only cements setting as a solid body showed a clear relationship between retentiveness level and taper degree. In contrast, the retentiveness of provisional (viscous, elastic-body-like) luting agents was less predictable.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Behr M, Lang R, Leibrock A, Rosentritt M, Handel G (1998) Complication rate of suprastructure in ITI and IMZ dental implants. Clin Oral Impl Res 9:51–58CrossRef Behr M, Lang R, Leibrock A, Rosentritt M, Handel G (1998) Complication rate of suprastructure in ITI and IMZ dental implants. Clin Oral Impl Res 9:51–58CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Behr M, Rosentritt M, Loher H, Kolbeck C, Trempler C, Stemplinger S, Kopzon V, Handel G (2008) Changes of cement properties caused by mixing errors: therapeutic range of different cement types. Dent Mater 24:1187–1193PubMedCrossRef Behr M, Rosentritt M, Loher H, Kolbeck C, Trempler C, Stemplinger S, Kopzon V, Handel G (2008) Changes of cement properties caused by mixing errors: therapeutic range of different cement types. Dent Mater 24:1187–1193PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Bernal G, Okamura M, Munoz CA (2003) The effects of abutment taper, length and cement type on resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont 12:111–115PubMedCrossRef Bernal G, Okamura M, Munoz CA (2003) The effects of abutment taper, length and cement type on resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont 12:111–115PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Behneke A, Behneke N, Hirt HP, Belser UC, Lang NP (1997) Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: life-table analysis of a prospective multi center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 8:161–172PubMedCrossRef Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Behneke A, Behneke N, Hirt HP, Belser UC, Lang NP (1997) Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: life-table analysis of a prospective multi center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 8:161–172PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Covey DA, Kent DK, St.Germain HA, Koka S (2000) Effects of abutment size and luting type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 83:344–348PubMedCrossRef Covey DA, Kent DK, St.Germain HA, Koka S (2000) Effects of abutment size and luting type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 83:344–348PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Craig RG, Powers JM (2002) Mechanical properties. In: Restorative dental materials. 11th edition, Mosby St. Louis. p. 67–110 Craig RG, Powers JM (2002) Mechanical properties. In: Restorative dental materials. 11th edition, Mosby St. Louis. p. 67–110
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Dudley JE, Richards LC, Abbott JR (2008) Retention of cast copings cemented to implant abutments. Aust Dent J 53:332–339PubMedCrossRef Dudley JE, Richards LC, Abbott JR (2008) Retention of cast copings cemented to implant abutments. Aust Dent J 53:332–339PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Darvell BW (2002) Materials science for dentistry. 7th edition, BW Darvell, Hong Kong (ISBN 962-85391-5-9) Darvell BW (2002) Materials science for dentistry. 7th edition, BW Darvell, Hong Kong (ISBN 962-85391-5-9)
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K (1999) Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 81:537–552PubMedCrossRef Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K (1999) Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 81:537–552PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Hebel KS, Gajjar RC (1997) Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations. Achieving optimal occlusion and esthestics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 77:28–35PubMedCrossRef Hebel KS, Gajjar RC (1997) Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations. Achieving optimal occlusion and esthestics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 77:28–35PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Heinemann F, Mundt T, Biffar R (2006) Retrospective evaluation of temporary cemented, tooth and implant supported fixed partial dentures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 34(Suppl 2):86–90PubMedCrossRef Heinemann F, Mundt T, Biffar R (2006) Retrospective evaluation of temporary cemented, tooth and implant supported fixed partial dentures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 34(Suppl 2):86–90PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Kaar D, Oshida Y, Andres CJ, Barco MT, Platt JA (2006) The effect of fatique damage on the force required to remove a restoration in a cement-retained implant system. J Prosthodont 15:289–294PubMedCrossRef Kaar D, Oshida Y, Andres CJ, Barco MT, Platt JA (2006) The effect of fatique damage on the force required to remove a restoration in a cement-retained implant system. J Prosthodont 15:289–294PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Keller W, Brägger U, Mombelli A (1998) Peri-implant microflora of implants with cemented and screw retained suprastructure. Clin Oral Impl Res 9:209–217CrossRef Keller W, Brägger U, Mombelli A (1998) Peri-implant microflora of implants with cemented and screw retained suprastructure. Clin Oral Impl Res 9:209–217CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim Y, Yamashita J, Shotwell JL, Chong KH, Wang HL (2006) The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 95:450–455PubMedCrossRef Kim Y, Yamashita J, Shotwell JL, Chong KH, Wang HL (2006) The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 95:450–455PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Konstantinos M, Hirayama H, Garefis P (2003) Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:719–728 Konstantinos M, Hirayama H, Garefis P (2003) Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:719–728
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee A, Okayasu K, Wang HL (2010) Screw- versus cement-retained implant restorations: current concepts. Implant Dent 19:8–15PubMedCrossRef Lee A, Okayasu K, Wang HL (2010) Screw- versus cement-retained implant restorations: current concepts. Implant Dent 19:8–15PubMedCrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Mansor A, Ercoli C, Graser G, Tallents R, Moss M (2002) Comparative evaluation of casting retention using ITI solid abutment with six cements. Clin Oral Impl Res 13:343–348CrossRef Mansor A, Ercoli C, Graser G, Tallents R, Moss M (2002) Comparative evaluation of casting retention using ITI solid abutment with six cements. Clin Oral Impl Res 13:343–348CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Mehl C, Harder S, Wolfart M, Kern M, Wolfart S (2008) Retrievability of implant-retained crowns following cementation. Clin Oral Implant Res 19:1304–1311CrossRef Mehl C, Harder S, Wolfart M, Kern M, Wolfart S (2008) Retrievability of implant-retained crowns following cementation. Clin Oral Implant Res 19:1304–1311CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD (2003) Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:719–728PubMed Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD (2003) Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:719–728PubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Nasour A, Ercoli C, Graser G, Tallents R, Moss M (2002) Comparative evaluation of casting retention using ITI solid abutment with six cements. Clin Oral Impl Res 13:343–348CrossRef Nasour A, Ercoli C, Graser G, Tallents R, Moss M (2002) Comparative evaluation of casting retention using ITI solid abutment with six cements. Clin Oral Impl Res 13:343–348CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Palacios RP, Johnson GH, Phillips KM, Raidgrodski AJ (2006) Retention of zirconium oxide ceramic crowns with three types of cement. J Prosthet Dent 96:104–114PubMedCrossRef Palacios RP, Johnson GH, Phillips KM, Raidgrodski AJ (2006) Retention of zirconium oxide ceramic crowns with three types of cement. J Prosthet Dent 96:104–114PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Pan YH, Ramp LC, Lin CK, Liu PR (2006) 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 21:587–592PubMed Pan YH, Ramp LC, Lin CK, Liu PR (2006) 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 21:587–592PubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Pauletto N, Lahiffe BJ, Walton JN (1999) Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Impl 14:865–868 Pauletto N, Lahiffe BJ, Walton JN (1999) Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Impl 14:865–868
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Scarano A, Assenza B, Piattelli M, Lezzi G, Leghissa GC, Quaranta A, Tortora P, Piatelli A (2005) A 16-year study of the microgap between 272 human titanium implants and their abutments. J Oral Implantol 31:269–275PubMedCrossRef Scarano A, Assenza B, Piattelli M, Lezzi G, Leghissa GC, Quaranta A, Tortora P, Piatelli A (2005) A 16-year study of the microgap between 272 human titanium implants and their abutments. J Oral Implantol 31:269–275PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Squier RS, Agar JR, Duncan JP, Taylor TD (2001) Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16:793–798PubMed Squier RS, Agar JR, Duncan JP, Taylor TD (2001) Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16:793–798PubMed
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Torrado E, Ercoli C, Mardini MA, Graser GN, Tallents RH, Cordaro LA (2004) Comparison of the porcelain fracture resistance of screw-retained and cement-retained implant-supported metal-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 91:532–537PubMedCrossRef Torrado E, Ercoli C, Mardini MA, Graser GN, Tallents RH, Cordaro LA (2004) Comparison of the porcelain fracture resistance of screw-retained and cement-retained implant-supported metal-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 91:532–537PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Zidan O, Fergusson GC (2003) The retention of complete crowns prepared with three different tapers and luted with four different cements. J Prosthet Dent 89:565–571PubMedCrossRef Zidan O, Fergusson GC (2003) The retention of complete crowns prepared with three different tapers and luted with four different cements. J Prosthet Dent 89:565–571PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Factors determining the retentiveness of luting agents used with metal- and ceramic-based implant components
verfasst von
Cornelia Schiessl
Lina Schaefer
Christian Winter
Jan Fuerst
Martin Rosentritt
Florian Zeman
Michael Behr
Publikationsdatum
01.05.2013
Verlag
Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Ausgabe 4/2013
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0798-x

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2013

Clinical Oral Investigations 4/2013 Zur Ausgabe

Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Zahnmedizin und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.