Nimy Rajan Lukose¹, Pradeep C Dathan², Shyam Mohan A³, Smitha Raveendran⁴ and K Chandrasekharan Nair⁵*

¹Specialist Prosthodontist and Implantologist, Al Rabeeh Medical Center, Manama, Bahrain
²Professor and Head of the Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Sankara Dental College, Akathumuri, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
³Professor of Prosthodontics, PMS Dental College, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
⁴Assistant Professor of Prosthodontics, Government Dental College, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India
⁵Professor Emeritus, Department of Prosthodontics, Sri Sankara Dental College, Akathumuri, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India

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

Received: January 09, 2024; Published: January 25, 2024

Abstract

Introduction: Short implant abutments which have less than 6mm height pose a problem of limited retention and the present study evaluates the effect of circumferential grooves in improving the retentive quality. A comparative evaluation of Zinc phosphate cement and Non eugenol provisional cement in providing adequate retention for implant crowns is also undertaken

Methodology: 80 implant analogues with abutments were fabricated and they were grouped into four. In group 1 no groove was milled and in the other three groups circumferential grooves were fabricated in the order of 1, 2 and 3. Cobalt chromium copings with loops were fabricated and cemented with phosphate and non eugenol cement in equal number of specimens in each group. Retention test was conducted with Instron universal testing machine using a pullout method. The retention values, tensile stress and tensile strain were calculated and subjected to statistical analysis – One way ANOVA.

Results: Retention values of phosphate cement were higher when compared to those of non eugenol cement. When luting was done with non eugenol cement, on incorporating one groove, the retention value increased by 73%, with two grooves by 181% and with three grooves by 242%. With phosphate cement, the retention values increased by 35%, 70% and 120% with each groove. The values obtained were statistically significant (<0.001).

Conclusions: 1. Phosphate cement exhibited superior retention, stress and strain values when compared to non eugenol cement. But this does not deny the usefulness of non eugenol cement in cemented implant crowns because of its facilitation of retrievability.

Keywords:Implant Supported Crowns; Retention; Circumferential Grooves; Luting Cements; Retrievability; Short Abutments

References

1. Hebel KS and Gajjar RC. “Cement-retained versus screw-re­tained implant restorations: Achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 77 (1977): 28.
2. Tarica DY., et al. “Survey of United States dental schools on cementation protocols for implant crown restorations”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 103 (2010): 68-79.
3. Kapoor R., et al. “Retention of implant supported metal crowns cemented with different luting agents: A comparative in vitro study”. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 10 (2016): ZC61-64.
4. Garg P., et al. “Retentiveness of various luting agents used with implant-supported prosthe­ses: A preliminary in-vitro study”. The International Journal of Prosthodontics 26 (2013): 82-84.
5. Jatin J., et al. “Retention failures in cement- and screw-retained fixed restorations on dental implants in partially edentulous arch­es: A systematic review with meta-analysis”. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 18 (2018): 201-211.
6. Sailer I., et al. “Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstruc­tions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 23 (2012): 163-201.
7. Tarica DY., et al. “Survey of United States dental schools on cementation protocols for implant crown restorations”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 103 (2010): 68-79.
8. Proussaefs P., et al. “The effectiveness of auxiliary features on a tooth preparation with inadequate resistance form”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 91 (2004): 33-41.
9. Chan KC., et al. “Auxiliary retention for complete crowns provided by cement keys”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 45 (1981): 152-155.
10. Misch CE. “Dental Implant Prosthetics”. St Louis, MO, Elsevier Mosby (2005): 414-451.
11. Hebel KS and Gajjar RC. “Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 77 (1997): 28-35.
12. Henry PJ., et al. “Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth replacement: a prospective 5-year multicenter study”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 11 (1996): 450-455.
13. Wiskott HWA., et al. “The relationship between abutment taper and resistance of cemented crowns to dynamic loading”. International Journal of Prosthodontics 9 (1996): 117-130.
14. Trier AC., et al. “Evaluation of resistance form of dislodged crowns and retainers”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 80 (1998): 405-409.
15. Mansour A., et al. “Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 13 (2002): 343-348.
16. James L Sheets., et al. “Cement Selection for Cement-Retained Crown Technique with Dental Implants”. Journal of Prosthodontics 17 (2008): 92-96.
17. Kordbacheh Changi K., et al. “Peri-implantitis prevalence, incidence rate, and risk factors: A study of electronic health records at a U.S. dental school”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 30 (2019): 306-314.
18. Scarano A., et al. “Current Status of Peri-Implant Diseases: A Clinical Review for Evidence-Based Decision Making”. Journal of Functional Biomaterials 14 (2023):
19. Badawi H., et al. “Effect of Circumferential and Axial Grooves on the Retentio of Provisionally Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Crowns”. Alexandria Dental Journal 40 (2015): 208-213.
20. Kai Chiu Ghan., et al. “Auxiliary retention for complete crowns provided by cement keys”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 45 (1981): 152-155.
21. Israel Lewinstein., et al. “An in vitro assessment of circumferential grooves on the retention of cementretained implant-supported crowns”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 106 (2011): 367-372.

Citation

Citation: K Chandrasekharan Nair., et al. “Role of circumferential grooves in improving the retentive properties of cemented implant supported crowns – an invitro evaluation".Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 8.2 (2024): 65-73.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2024 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.