ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the retention strength of five cement types commonly used in implant-retained fixed partial dentures, before and after compressive cyclic loading. In five solid abutments screwed to 5 implant analogs, 50 metal Cr-Ni alloy copings were cemented with five luting agents: resin-modified glass ionomer (RmGI), resin composite (RC), glass ionomer (GI), resin urethane-based (RUB), and compomer cement (CC). Two tensile tests were conducted with a universal testing machine, one after the first luting of the copings and the other after 100,000 cycles of 100 N loading at 0.72 Hz. The one way ANOVA test was applied for the statistical analysis using the post hoc Tukey test when required. Before and after applying the compressive load, RmGI and RC cement types showed the greatest retention strength. After compressive loading, RUB cement showed the highest percentage loss of retention (64.45%). GI cement recorded the lowest retention strength (50.35 N) and the resin composite cement recorded the highest (352.02 N). The type of cement influences the retention loss. The clinician should give preference to lower retention strength cement (RUB, CC, and GI) if he envisages any complications and a high retention strength one (RmGI, RC) for a specific clinical situation.
Subject(s)
Cementation/methods , Dental Cements/chemistry , Dental Implant-Abutment Design/methods , Dental Implants , Alloys , Analysis of Variance , Chromium/chemistry , Chromium Alloys/chemistry , Compressive Strength , Dental Abutments , Dental Implantation , Dental Stress Analysis/instrumentation , Glass Ionomer Cements/chemistry , Humans , Materials Testing , Nickel/chemistry , Pressure , Stress, Mechanical , Tensile Strength , Urethane/chemistryABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the retention strength of three cements commonly used in implant-supported prostheses before and after compressive cyclic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The working model consisted of five solid abutments, 7 mm in height and with a 6-degree taper, screw retained to five implant analogs secured in a rectangular block of self-curing acrylic. On the abutments, 30 metal Cr-Ni alloy copings were cemented using three luting agents: glass ionomer, resin urethane-based, and compomer cement (n = 10). Two tensile tests were conducted with a universal testing machine, before and after 100,000 cycles of 100 N and 0.72 Hz compressive cyclic loading in a humid environment. RESULTS: Before applying the compressive load, the retention strength of the resin urethane-based cement was slightly higher than that of the compomer cement and 75% greater than the glass-ionomer cement. After compressive loading, the resin urethane-based cement showed the highest percentage of loss of retention (64.45%, compared with 50% for glass-ionomer and compomer cement). However, the glass-ionomer cement showed the lowest mean retentive strength with 50.35 N as opposed to 75.12 N for the compomer cement and 71.25 N for the resin urethane-based. CONCLUSIONS: Compressive cyclic loading significantly influences the retention strength of the luting agents tested. All three cements may favor the retrievability of the crowns.
