Effects of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns

被引:86
作者
Covey, DA
Kent, DK
Germain, HAS
Koka, S
机构
[1] Univ Nebraska, Med Ctr, Coll Dent, Dept Adult Restorat Dent, Lincoln, NE 68583 USA
[2] Univ Nebraska, Med Ctr, Coll Dent, Dept Dent Practice Management, Lincoln, NE 68583 USA
[3] Univ Nebraska, Med Ctr, Coll Dent, Dept Oral Biol, Lincoln, NE 68583 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70138-7
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Statement of problem. The assumption that increasing the diameter of the abutment/crown components will provide greater resistance to crown loosening forces than standard-sized components has not been reported either with clinical trials or in the laboratory. Purpose. This study attempted to determine what effect abutment dimension and type of luting agent have on the retention of the prosthetic crown. Methods and material. Test specimens consisted of standard, wide, and "experimental" CeraOne titanium abutments and matching CeraOne gold cylinders cemented with a zinc phosphate permanent or a zinc oxide eugenol provisional cement. The mean uniaxial force (Newtons) and the load (MPa) required to dislodge the cylinder from the abutment was determined. Statistical analysis of the sample data was performed using a 2-way analysis of variance test (alpha = .05). Results. Mean uniaxial resistance force (Newtons) was significantly greater for zinc phosphate cement than for zinc oxide cement (P < .001). Abutment size was a significant factor when permanent luting cement is used (P < .001). Retention strength per unit area (MPa) of the wide abutments was lower than the standard size and "experimental" abutments. Conclusion. Permanent luting cement produced uniaxial retention forces approximately 3 times greater than provisional cement. The increase in surface area provided by a wide abutment did not result in an improvement in retention strength over the standard abutment.
引用
收藏
页码:344 / 348
页数:5
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
ANDERSSON B, 1992, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, V7, P105
[2]  
Avivi-Arber L, 1996, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, V11, P311
[3]   USE OF LUTING AGENTS WITH AN IMPLANT SYSTEM .1. [J].
BREEDING, LC ;
DIXON, DL ;
BOGACKI, MT ;
TIETGE, JD .
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 1992, 68 (05) :737-741
[4]  
Clayton GH, 1997, INT J ORAL MAX IMPL, V12, P660
[5]   THE EFFECTS OF SURFACE-ROUGHNESS AND SURFACE-AREA ON THE RETENTION OF CROWNS LUTED WITH ZINC PHOSPHATE CEMENT [J].
DARVENIZA, M ;
BASFORD, KE ;
MEEK, J ;
STEVENS, L .
AUSTRALIAN DENTAL JOURNAL, 1987, 32 (06) :446-457
[6]  
Ekfeldt A, 1994, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, V9, P179
[7]  
GIBBONS JD, 1997, NONPARAMETRIC METHOD, P57
[8]   RETENTIVE STRENGTH, DISINTEGRATION, AND MARGINAL QUALITY OF LUTING CEMENTS [J].
GORODOVSKY, S ;
ZIDAN, O .
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 1992, 68 (02) :269-274
[9]  
Henry P J, 1996, Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, V11, P450
[10]  
JEMT T, 1991, International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, V6, P29