Effect of Luting Agents and Height of Implant Abutments on the Retentive Properties of Copings - an In Vitro Study

Surya Rengasamy¹, K Chandrasekharan Nair²* and Jayakar Shetty³

¹Reader, Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, SRM Kattan Kulathur Dental College and Hospital, Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu
²Professor Emeritus, Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Sankara Dental College, Akathumuri, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
³Former Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, AECS Maaruti College of Dental Sciences, Bangalore, India

*Corresponding Author: K Chandrasekharan Nair Professor Emeritus, Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Sankara Dental College, Akathumuri, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.

Received: December 27, 2022; Published: January 09, 2023

Abstract

Objective: 1. To determine the effect of luting agents viz. zinc phosphate cement and non-eugenol cement on the retention of copings, 2. To determine the effect of height of the implant abutments viz. 4mm and 6mm on the retention of copings and 3. To determine the effect of type of copings viz. Zirconia and metal on the retention of copings cemented to implant abutments.

Methodology: TTwo brands of standard titanium implant abutments of 3.75mm diameter and 6 degree taper were used (ADIN, MIS implant systems). The abutments were machined to two different heights viz. 4mm and 6mm. The implant analogs with the abutment were positioned in cylindrical bases. Two types of copings were fabricated viz. metal copings and Zirconia copings. The copings were cemented with zinc phosphate cement (De Trey Zinc) and non-eugenol cement (Provicol). The cemented specimens were stored for 24 hours at 370C. Tensile testing was done using universal testing machine (Instron) at a cross-head speed of 1mm/min. Data was statistically analyzed with factorial ANOVA.

Results: The tensile strength was maximum for 6mm MIS implant abutment when Zirconia coping was cemented with De Trey Zinc cement (556 ± 27.34N). The minimum was seen with 4mm MIS abutment when metal coping was cemented with Provicol cement (60.90 ± 5.72N). There was statistically significant difference between the groups (p ˂ 0.001).

Conclusion:

• The two brands of dental implants viz. MIS and ADIN behaved almost in a similar fashion with respect to the variables such as the materials used for preparing the copings, cement used for luting and the height of the abutments.
• Height of the implant abutment and the retention of the copings have a directly proportional relationship.
• While comparing Zirconia and metal copings, the former always exhibited superior retention.
• De Trey Zinc always showed higher mean retention strength when used with metal or Zirconia copings.
• The combination of Zirconia copings, De Trey Zinc luting cement and abutment with 6mm height exhibited the maximum retention strength.
• With 4mm abutments, the luting cement preference that can be recommended is zinc phosphate followed by provisional cement whereas with 6mm abutments, the preferential order is reversed. If the retention values are high, retrieval attempts may challenge the osseointegration.

luting cement preference that can be recommended is zinc phosphate followed by provisional cement whereas with 6mm abutments, the preferential order is reversed. If the retention values are high, retrieval attempts may challenge the osseointegration.

Keywords:Retention; Tensile Bond Strength; Cement Retained Implant Prosthesis; Height of Abutment; Luting Agents

References

1. Kent DK., et al. “Retention of cemented implant-supported restorations”. Journal of Prosthodontics 6 (1997): 793- 196.
2. Clayton GH., et al. “The effect of luting agents on the retention and marginal adaptation of the CeraOne implant system”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 12 (1997): 660-665.
3. Ramp MH., et al. “Tensile bond strengths of provisional luting agents used with an implant system”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 81 (1999): 510-514.
4. Covey DA., et al. “Effect of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 83 (2000): 344-348.
5. Squier RS., et al. “Retentiveness of Dental Cements Used with metallic Implant Components”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 16 (2001): 793-798.
6. Akca K., et al. “Comparison of uniaxial resistance forces of cements used with implant-supported crowns”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 17 (2002): 536-542.
7. Mayta-Tovalino FR., et al. “Removal force of cast copings to abutments with three luting agents”. Journal of Dental Implants 5 (2015): 25-30.
8. Angel Alvarez-Arenal., et al. “The selection criteria of temporary or permanent luting agents in implant-supported prostheses: in vitro study”. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 8 (2016): 144-149.
9. Sara Maria Blender., et al. “Effect of abutment height and type of cement”. The International Journal of Prosthodontics 35 (2022): 442-452.
10. Angel Alvarez-Arenal., et al. “The selection criteria of temporary or permanent luting agents in implant-supported prostheses: in vitro study”. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 8 (2016): 144-149.
11. Saber FS., et al. “Effect of abutment height on retention of single cement-retained, wide- and narrow-platform implant-supported restorations”. Journal of Dental Research Dental Clinics Dental Prospects 3 (2012): 98-102.
12. Bernal G., et al. “The effects of abutment taper, length and cement type on resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations”. Journal of Prosthodontics 12 (2003): 111-115.
13. Bresciano M., et al. “Retention of luting agents on implant abutments of different height and taper”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 16 (2005): 594-598.
14. Yeung TC., et al. “The effect of cement and venting design on the retentive strength and marginal adaptation of CeraOne implant prostheses”. Chinese Journal of Dental 2 (2005): 95-100.
15. Maeyama H., et al. “Retentive strength of metal copings on prefabricated abutments with five different cements”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research4 (2005): 229-234.
16. Pan YH and Lin CK. “The effect of luting agents on the retention of dental implant-supported crowns”. Chang Gung Medical Journal6 (2005): 403-410.
17. Wolfart M., et al. “Retention forces and seating discrepancies of implant-retained castings after cementation”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 21 (2006): 519-525.
18. Abbo B., et al. “Resistance to dislodgement of zirconia copings cemented onto titanium abutments of different heights”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 99 (2008): 25-29.
19. Sheets JL., et al. “Cement selection for cement-retained crown technique with dental implants”. Journal of Prosthodontics 17 (2008): 92-96.
20. Wahl C., et al. “Assessment of the tensile strength of hexagonal abutments using different cementing agents”. Brazilian Oral Research4 (2008): 299-304.
21. Al Hamad KQ., et al. “The effects of height and surface roughness of abutments and the type of cement on bond strength of cement-retained implant restorations”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 22 (2011): 638-644.
22. Nejatidanesh F., et al. “Retention of implant supported zirconium oxide ceramic restorations using different luting agents”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 00 (2011): 1-5.
23. Cano-Batalla J., et al. “Influence of abutment height and surface roughness on in vitro retention of three luting agents”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 27 (2012): 36-41.
24. Sina Safari., et al. “Effects of abutment diameter, luting agent type, and re-cementation on the retention of implant-supported CAD/CAM metal copings over short abutments”. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics 10 (2018): 1-7.
25. Carnaggio TV., et al. “Retention of CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns on prefabricated implant abutments: an in vitro comparative study of luting agents and abutment surface area”. Journal of Prosthodontics 00 (2012): 1-6.
26. Deepthi B C., et al. “Comparative evaluation of retention of zirconia copings and cast metal copings cemented on to titanium abutments: an in vitro study”. Journal of Interdisciplinary Dentistry 9 (2019): 8-14.
27. Hallgren C., et al. “Histomorphometric and mechanical evaluation of the bone-tissue response to implants prepared with different orientation of surface topography”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research4 (2001): 194-203.
28. Singer A and Serfaty V. “Cement-retained implant-supported fixed partial dentures: a 6-month to 3-year follow-up”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 11 (1996): 645-664.
29. Wismeijer D., et al. “Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding restorative materials and techniques for implant dentistry”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 29 (2014): 137-140.

Citation

Citation: K Chandrasekharan Nair., et al. “Effect of Luting Agents and Height of Implant Abutments on the Retentive Properties of Copings - an In Vitro Study".Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 7.2 (2023): 79-90.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2023 K Chandrasekharan Nair., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.