J Adv Prosthodont.  2014 Jun;6(3):233-240. 10.4047/jap.2014.6.3.233.

Evaluation of removal forces of implant-supported zirconia copings depending on abutment geometry, luting agent and cleaning method during re-cementation

• Rodiger M
• Rinke S
• Ehret-Kleinau F
• Pohlmeyer
• Lange K
• Burgers R
• Gersdorff

• KMID: 2118235
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2014.6.3.233

Abstract

PURPOSE
To evaluate the effects of different abutment geometries in combination with varying luting agents and the effectiveness of different cleaning methods (prior to re-cementation) regarding the retentiveness of zirconia copings on implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Implants were embedded in resin blocks. Three groups of titanium abutments (pre-fabricated, height: 7.5 mm, taper: 5.7degrees; customized-long, height: 6.79 mm, taper: 4.8degrees; customized-short, height: 4.31 mm, taper: 4.8degrees) were used for luting of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia copings with a semi-permanent (Telio CS) and a provisional cement (TempBond NE). Retention forces were evaluated using a universal testing machine. Furthermore, the influence of cleaning methods (manually, manually in combination with ultrasonic bath or sandblasting) prior to re-cementation with a provisional cement (TempBond NE) was investigated with the pre-fabricated titanium abutments (height: 7.5 mm, taper: 5.7degrees) and SEM-analysis of inner surfaces of the copings was performed. Significant differences were determined via two-way ANOVA.
RESULTS
Significant interactions between abutment geometry and luting agent were observed. TempBond NE showed the highest level of retentiveness on customized-long abutments, but was negatively affected by other abutment geometries. In contrast, luting with Telio CS demonstrated consistent results irrespective of the varying abutment geometries. Manual cleaning in combination with an ultrasonic bath was the only cleaning method tested prior to re-cementation that revealed retentiveness levels not inferior to primary cementation.
CONCLUSION
No superiority for one of the two cements could be demonstrated because their influences on retentive strength are also depending on abutment geometry. Only manual cleaning in combination with an ultrasonic bath offers retentiveness levels after re-cementation comparable to those of primary luting.

Keyword

Implant abutments; Zirconia copings; CAD/CAM; Temporary cementation; Semi-permanent cementation; Cleaning method

MeSH Terms

Baths
Cementation
Dental Cements*
Titanium
Ultrasonics
Dental Cements
Titanium

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Scheme of pull-out tests with zirconia copings. (A) varying abutment geometries and luting agents, (B) varying cleaning methods.

• 

  Fig. 2 Scheme of the individually designed metal retraction device to fix the specimens for pull-out tests into a universal testing machine.

• 

  Fig. 3 Virtually designed customized abutments (Software Cercon art, DeguDent GmbH, Hanau Germany). (A) "short" with a height of 4.31 mm and a taper 4.8° (B) "long" with a height of 6.79 mm and a taper of 4.8°.

• 

  Fig. 4 Means of retention forces (N) with 95% confidence intervals.

• 

  Fig. 5 Means of retention forces (N) with 95% confidence intervals.

• 

  Fig. 6 Scanning electron micrographs of the inner surface of zirconia copings. Magnification 400x. (A) Untreated, (B) After manual treatment using a curette and gauze, (C) After manual treatment and an ultrasonic bath, (D) After sandblasting; Bars: 100 µm.

Reference

1. Heydecke G, Kohal R, Gläser R. Optimal esthetics in single-tooth replacement with the Re-Implant system: a case report. Int J Prosthodont. 1999; 12:184–189.

2. Sailer I, Zembic A, Jung RE, Hämmerle CH, Mattiola A. Single-tooth implant reconstructions: esthetic factors influencing the decision between titanium and zirconia abutments in anterior regions. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2007; 2:296–310.

3. Fischer H, Karaca F, Marx R. Detection of microscopic cracks in dental ceramic materials by fluorescent penetrant method. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002; 61:153–158.

4. Guess PC, Att W, Strub JR. Zirconia in fixed implant prosthodontics. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14:633–645.

5. Rekow ED, Silva NR, Coelho PG, Zhang Y, Guess P, Thompson VP. Performance of dental ceramics: challenges for improvements. J Dent Res. 2011; 90:937–952.

6. Larsson C, Wennerberg A. The clinical success of zirconia-based crowns: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont. 2014; 27:33–43.

7. Kohorst P, Junghanns J, Dittmer MP, Borchers L, Stiesch M. Different CAD/CAM-processing routes for zirconia restorations: influence on fitting accuracy. Clin Oral Investig. 2011; 15:527–536.

8. Beuer F, Naumann M, Gernet W, Sorensen JA. Precision of fit: zirconia three-unit fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Investig. 2009; 13:343–349.

9. Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 77:28–35.

10. Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003; 18:719–728.

11. Torrado E, Ercoli C, Al Mardini M, Graser GN, Tallents RH, Cordaro L. A comparison of the porcelain fracture resistance of screw-retained and cement-retained implant-supported metal-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 91:532–537.

12. Brägger U, Karoussis I, Persson R, Pjetursson B, Salvi G, Lang N. Technical and biological complications/failures with single crowns and fixed partial dentures on implants: a 10-year prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005; 16:326–334.

13. Sherif S, Susarla SM, Hwang JW, Weber HP, Wright RF. Clinician- and patient-reported long-term evaluation of screw- and cement-retained implant restorations: a 5-year prospective study. Clin Oral Investig. 2011; 15:993–999.

14. Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Bogacki MT, Tietge JD. Use of luting agents with an implant system: Part I. J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 68:737–741.

15. Park JI, Lee Y, Lee JH, Kim YL, Bae JM, Cho HW. Comparison of fracture resistance and fit accuracy of customized zirconia abutments with prefabricated zirconia abutments in internal hexagonal implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013; 15:769–778.

16. Jung RE, Holderegger C, Sailer I, Khraisat A, Suter A, Hämmerle CH. The effect of all-ceramic and porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations on marginal peri-implant soft tissue color: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008; 28:357–365.

17. Blatz MB, Bergler M, Holst S, Block MS. Zirconia abutments for single-tooth implants-rationale and clinical guidelines. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 67:74–81.

18. Vigolo P, Fonzi F, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. An in vitro evaluation of titanium, zirconia, and alumina procera abutments with hexagonal connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006; 21:575–580.

19. Zembic A, Sailer I, Jung RE, Hämmerle CH. Randomized-controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for single-tooth implants in canine and posterior regions: 3-year results. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20:802–808.

20. Bresciano M, Schierano G, Manzella C, Screti A, Bignardi C, Preti G. Retention of luting agents on implant abutments of different height and taper. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005; 16:594–598.

21. Schiessl C, Schaefer L, Winter C, Fuerst J, Rosentritt M, Zeman F, Behr M. Factors determining the retentiveness of luting agents used with metal- and ceramic-based implant components. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17:1179–1190.

22. Bernal G, Okamura M, Muñoz CA. The effects of abutment taper, length and cement type on resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont. 2003; 12:111–115.

23. Zidan O, Ferguson GC. The retention of complete crowns prepared with three different tapers and luted with four different cements. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89:565–571.

24. Kim Y, Yamashita J, Shotwell JL, Chong KH, Wang HL. The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2006; 95:450–455.

25. Kokubo Y, Kano T, Tsumita M, Sakurai S, Itayama A, Fukushima S. Retention of zirconia copings on zirconia implant abutments cemented with provisional luting agents. J Oral Rehabil. 2010; 37:48–53.

26. Keum EC, Shin SY. A comparison of retentive strength of implant cement depending on various methods of removing provisional cement from implant abutment. J Adv Prosthodont. 2013; 5:234–240.

27. Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Sindel J. Repair strength of etched vs silica-coated metal-ceramic and all-ceramic restorations. Oper Dent. 2000; 25:209–215.

28. Chintapalli RK, Mestra Rodriguez A, Garcia Marro F, Anglada M. Effect of sandblasting and residual stress on strength of zirconia for restorative dentistry applications. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2014; 29:126–137.

29. Lewinstein I, Block L, Lehr Z, Ormianer Z, Matalon S. An in vitro assessment of circumferential grooves on the retention of cement-retained implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2011; 106:367–372.

30. Mehl C, Harder S, Shahriari A, Steiner M, Kern M. Influence of abutment height and thermocycling on retrievability of cemented implant-supported crowns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27:1106–1115.

31. Caughman WF, Chan DC, Rueggeberg FA. Curing potential of dual-polymerizable resin cements in simulated clinical situations. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 85:479–484.

32. Son YH, Han CH, Kim S. Influence of internal-gap width and cement type on the retentive force of zirconia copings in pullout testing. J Dent. 2012; 40:866–872.

33. Ernst CP, Wenzl N, Stender E, Willershausen B. Retentive strengths of cast gold crowns using glass ionomer, compomer, or resin cement. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 79:472–476.

34. Mehl C, Harder S, Steiner M, Vollrath O, Kern M. Influence of cement film thickness on the retention of implant-retained crowns. J Prosthodont. 2013; 22:618–625.

35. Cano-Batalla J, Soliva-Garriga J, Campillo-Funollet M, Munoz-Viveros CA, Giner-Tarrida L. Influence of abutment height and surface roughness on in vitro retention of three luting agents. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27:36–41.

36. Enkling N, Ueda T, Gholami H, Bayer S, Katsoulis J, Mericske-Stern R. Precision of fit and retention force of cast non-precious-crowns on standard titanium implant-abutment with different design and height. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25:451–457.

37. Binon PP. The effect of implant/abutment hexagonal misfit on screw joint stability. Int J Prosthodont. 1996; 9:149–160.

38. Cibirka RM, Nelson SK, Lang BR, Rueggeberg FA. Examination of the implant-abutment interface after fatigue testing. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 85:268–275.

39. Binon PP. Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15:76–94.

40. Attia A, Lehmann F, Kern M. Influence of surface conditioning and cleaning methods on resin bonding to zirconia ceramic. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:207–213.