RESUMO
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.