Assessment of the tensile strength of hexagonal abutments using different cementing agents

Wahl, Carlos; França, Fabiana Mantovani Gomes; Brito, Rui Barbosa de; Basting, Roberta Tarkany; Smanio, Henrique

doi:10.1590/s1806-83242008000400003

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the cementation technique, the literature shows that not only the pressure used but also whether it is static or dynamic may interfere with the thickness of the film. [12]…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability of external and internal implant connections after a fatigue test

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:The objective of this study was to compare the torque and detorque values of screw intermediates of external hexagon, internal hexagon, and Morse taper implants in single restorations before and after mechanical cycling.Materials and Methods:The study sample was divided into three groups (n = 10) as follows: group EH – external hexagon implant, group IH – internal hexagon implant, and group MT – Morse taper implant. Universal abutments were screwed on the implants, and metal crowns were cemented onto the abutment. The samples were submitted to a mechanical testing of 1 million cycles, with a frequency of 8 cycles per second under a 400 N load. The application and registration of the screw torque (T0) and detorque (T1) values of the intermediate were performed before and after the test. The results were statistically evaluated by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's test (α = 0.05).Results:There was no difference between the values of T0 and T1 in the intra-group samples. However, the inter-group difference in T0 between the EH (12.8 N cm) and MT (18.6 N cm) groups and in T1 between the EH (10.4 N cm) and IH (13.8 N cm), EH and MT (19.4 N cm), and MT and IH (P = 0.001) groups were significant. The MT group showed a lower variation of T0 and T1.Conclusion:The internal implants, particularly MT, showed better stability in these cases when used for single restorations.

show abstract

“…Regarding the cementation technique, the literature shows that not only the pressure used but also whether it is static or dynamic may interfere with the thickness of the film. [12]…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability of external and internal implant connections after a fatigue test

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different types of cements provide different levels of crown retention. (22,23) Logically, no single retrievable cement will suffice for all clinical situations. The type of cement used is also an important consideration because it affects the retention characteristics of the restoration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Abutment Total Occlusal Convergence and Cement Type on Retention of Cement Retained Implant-Supported Restorations

ElHiatmy

AbdelGhany²,

Amin³

2016

ADJ-for Girls

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of abutment total occlusal convergence (TOC), and cement type on the uniaxial tensile resistance to dislodgment of cement-retained, implant-supported metal copings. Six titanium implant abutmnets were constructed using CAD-CAM technology. Two abutments have TOC 6˚, Two abutments have TOC 8˚, and Two abutments have TOC 12˚. Identical copings were cast to fit each abutment with a loop incorporated that was engaged by the testing unit. The copings were cemented using either a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) (Rely™ X U 200 Automix) or self adhesive resin cement that contained a 10Methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) monomer (Multilink® N). Each of the experimental groups had a unique combination of abutment TOC, and cement.Specimens were aged using a thermocycling unit with water between 5 and 55 degrees Celsius with 15 seconds in each bath and a 5 seconds dwell time, for 540 cycles.A universal testing machine was used to test uniaxial tensile strength. Cement was cleaned using thermal, mechanical, and physical methods, and surface finish was reestablished. This procedure was repeated to obtain different measurements for each group. Surface area for each abutment was calculated and used for the calculation of the tensile strength. One way ANOVA followed by pair-wise Newman-Keuls post-hoc tests were performed to detect significance between subgroups. Pair-wise student t-test was performed to detect interaction between variables of significant effect.P values ≤ 0.05 are considered to be statistically significant in all tests. Regardless of the cement type, totally it was found that Group A recorded the highest retentive force mean values followed by Group B while Group C recorded the lowest retentive force mean values. The difference between all groups was statistically significant (p<0.05). Pairwise Newman-Keuls post-hoc tests showed that the difference between Group A and Group B was statistically non-significant (p>0.05). Irrespective of convergence groups, totally it was found that Multilink N group recorded statistically significant (p<0.05) higher retentive force mean values than Rely X U200 one.

show abstract

“…Table shows comparative retentive levels of various cements used in different investigations for cement‐retained restorations. Generally, according to most of the studies that compared tensile strength of different temporary and permanent cements, the order of cements from least to most retentiveness is zinc oxide (with or without eugenol), polycarboxylate, glass ionomer, RMGI, zinc phosphate, and resin adhesive cements …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Generally, according to most of the studies that compared tensile strength of different temporary and permanent cements, the order of cements from least to most retentiveness is zinc oxide (with or without eugenol), polycarboxylate, glass ionomer, RMGI, zinc phosphate, and resin adhesive cements. 4,25,40,68,[80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87] In selection among permanent cements, simplicity of removing the excess cement and possible damage to Ti abutments also should be considered. 40 According to Agar et al 40 the order of cements from least to most difficult to clean up is zinc phosphate, glass ionomer, and resin cements.…”

Section: Permanent Vs Temporary Cementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cement Selection for Cement‐Retained Implant‐Supported Prostheses: A Literature Review

Nematollahi

Beyabanaki

Alikhasi

2015

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cement-retained implant-supported prostheses are widely used for restoring missing teeth; however, they show some complications in comparison to screw-retained restorations, such as difficulty in retrieving the restoration and biocompatibility of cement. Therefore, the practitioner should consider several important aspects when using this type of restoration. In this regard, one major concern is appropriate cement selection, with considerations including cement biologic compatibility, methods for limiting the excess cement, ease of removing the excess cement, radiographic view of the cement, and also the possibility of future retrieval of the prosthesis. The aim of this review article was to address most aspects related to this type of prosthesis in terms of cementation.

show abstract

Assessment of the tensile strength of hexagonal abutments using different cementing agents

Cited by 14 publications

References 10 publications

Stability of external and internal implant connections after a fatigue test

Stability of external and internal implant connections after a fatigue test

Effect of Abutment Total Occlusal Convergence and Cement Type on Retention of Cement Retained Implant-Supported Restorations

Cement Selection for Cement‐Retained Implant‐Supported Prostheses: A Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About