Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: Achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry

Hebel, Kenneth S.; Gajjar, Reena C.

doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70203-8

Cited by 420 publications

(364 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

320

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2 There are concepts that influence the increased retention of a cemented prosthesis: parallelism between the abutments, surface area and height, surface roughness and the type of cement. 5 Regarding this aspect, the type of cement is a relevant and decisive factor for retention. 6 However, there are questions about the possibility of using temporary bonding agents instead of permanent cements to remove the prostheses without causing damage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess the uniaxial tensile strength after thermal cycling in replicas of CeraOne  abutments (abutment and coping sets), using four types of cements (n = 10). A zinc phosphate cement (Fosfato de Zinco  / SSW), a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RelyX  luting / 3M-ESPE), a zinc oxide-eugenol cement (ZOE  / SSW) and a zinc oxide cement without eugenol (TempBond NE  / KERR) were used. After cementation, the samples were submitted to thermal cycles (1,000 cycles, 5°C ± 2° to 55°C ± 2°) for thirty seconds in each bath. Next, the samples were submitted to the tensile test in a universal test machine (0.5 mm/min). The data were submitted to ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer test (p < 0.05), and statistically significant difference was found among the cements. The highest tensile strength mean value found was for zinc phosphate cement (33.6 kgf) followed by the resin-modified glass ionomer cement (20.5 kgf), zinc oxide-eugenol cement (8.4 kgf) and the temporary cement (3.1 kgf). Therefore, it was found that the permanent cements presented higher tensile strength, and the temporary cement could be used in situations requiring reversibility and the removal of cemented dental implant-supported prostheses.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The greatest clinical issues include loosening of the screw used to maintain and fix the implant and the problem caused by fractures from complex factors, such as the iterative masticatory load, incorrect fitting of the implant, application of a non-functional force, occlusal overload, abnormal occlusal relationship, fixture implant design or the defect of material. (Hebel & Gajjar, 1997;Singer & Serfaty, 1996;Chae, Jong, & June, 1997;Jorneus, Jent, & Carlsson, 1992;Kallus & Bessing, 1994;Haack et al, 1995;Burguete et al, 1994;Naert et al, 1992;Jemt et al, 1991;Rangert et al, 1995;Moon, 2002;Balshi, 1996;W. Becker & B. E. Becker, 1995).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finite Element Analysis of Screw-Tightening Torque Applied to Custom and Conventional Abutment

Lee¹,

Hong²,

Lee³

2017

GJHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to design an abutment with an esthetic emergence profile contour using CAD technology and compare the stress distribution within the structure between the custom abutment and conventional abutment according to the screw tightening torque using 3D finite element analysis (FEA). The maximum tensile principal stress was found in the endpoint of the screw head and the start point of the screw line with regard to the application of the tightening torque of the screw. A similar pattern was observed in all of the following screws: 10N·cm, 20N·cm, and 30N·cm. The tightening torque of the screw had a significant impact on the changes in the stress of the abutment and screw fixture. This study also found that the condition in which the screw load was applied showed a more realistic description of the behavior of a single fixed dental implant than the condition in which the screw load was not applied. This study examined the optimal tightening torque value of the screw for the denture used in this study at a location slightly higher than 20N·cm. The difference in the custom abutment and conventional abutment did not have a significant impact on the supporting bone with regard to the external load. In regard to the stress occurring in the screw, the custom abutment had a lower degree of stress than the conventional type. Therefore, a screw fracture would occur less frequently in a custom abutment than a conventional abutment.

show abstract

“…It should be stressed that the abovementioned studies are laboratory studies (13,18) and bonding in such cases is performed under ideal, pre-established conditions. A number of factors can affect the bonding of prostheses on both teeth and implants, such as the preparation of the abutment, the taper of the abutment, surface area, surface roughness, type of cement and experience of the dentist (19). Thus, clinical conditions are believed to be different from laboratory conditions, which can affect the outcome.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technical complications with implant-supported dental prostheses

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: Achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry

Cited by 420 publications

References 13 publications

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

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

Finite Element Analysis of Screw-Tightening Torque Applied to Custom and Conventional Abutment

Technical complications with implant-supported dental prostheses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About