Influence of cement type and ceramic primer on retention of polymer-infiltrated ceramic crowns to a one-piece zirconia implant

Rohr, Nadja; Brunner, Stefan; Märtin, Sabrina; Fischer, Jens

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.02.002

Cited by 37 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to differences in test set-ups, the retrieved fracture load [10][11][12][13][14][17][18][19][20] or retention force [21,22] values can vary greatly for the respective materials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chewing simulation of zirconia implant supported restorations

Rohr

Balmer

Müller

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontic Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE To test three potential prosthetic material options for zirconia implants in regard to their mechanical properties, loading and retention capacity as well as to record abrasion after chewing simulation followed by thermocyclic aging. METHODS Molar crowns (n = 96) of three different computeraided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) materials were produced and cemented on zirconia implants (ceramic.implant, Vita) with a diameter of 4.5 mm. Monolithic zirconia (Vita YZ [YZ] with RelyX Unicem 2 Automix [RUN], polymer-infiltrated ceramic (Vita Enamic [VE]) with Vita Adiva F-Cem [VAF] and acrylate polymer (CAD Temp [CT]) with RelyX Ultimate [RUL]. Fracture load and retentive force of the crowns were measured after 24 h water storage at 37°C and after a chewing simulation followed by thermocyclic aging. Abrasion was recorded by matching stereolithography-data of the crowns obtained before and after chewing simulation. Additionally, the mechanical properties and bonding capabilities of the crown and cement materials were assessed. RESULTS Fracture load values were significantly highest for YZ > VE = CT. Retention force values did not differ significantly between the materials. The aging procedure did not affect the fracture load values nor the retention force significantly. Abrasion depth of the crowns was lowest for YZ followed by VE and CT. On unpolished crowns, abrasion of YZ and VE tended to be higher than on polished specimens. CONCLUSIONS Based on the obtained in-vitro results, all tested materials can be recommended for the use on zirconia implants, although CT is only approved for temporary crowns. The loading and retention capacity of the materials were not significantly affected by aging.

show abstract

“…Due to differences in test set-ups, the retrieved fracture load [10][11][12][13][14][17][18][19][20] or retention force [21,22] values can vary greatly for the respective materials.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chewing simulation of zirconia implant supported restorations

Rohr

Balmer

Müller

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontic Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the contrary, another study by Rohr, Nadja, Brunner, et al 11 found that resin based temporary cement showed significantly higher retentive values than those of the zinc oxide non eugenol temporary cement when used with polymer infiltrated hybrid glass ceramic crowns supported by one piece zirconia implants 11 . However, in their study they have done surface treatment to the fitting surfaces of the crowns, which maybe the reason of the significant higher retentive values of the resin based temporary cement than those of the zinc oxide non eugenol temporary cement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Evaluation of retention of two implant supported ceramic crowns using two temporary cements

Farahat

Aboelfadl

2018

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…An interaction between the hydroxyl groups of 10-MDP in F2.0 and the cationic surface of resin block was able to form a strong bond between resin cement and resin block. Previous studies have suggested that while V5 has good dentin bonding ability 16) , V5 shows inferior bonding performance to prosthetic materials when comparing V5 to F2.0 24) .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Enhancement of dentin bond strength of resin cement using new resin coating materials

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to investigate combinations of resin coating materials with a dual-cure resin cement for indirect restorations by evaluating microtensile bond strengths (μTBS). Dentin surfaces of human molars were bonded with either a direct or an indirect resin composite with/without the resin coating technique. For the resin coating material, Clearfil SE Bond 2 and either one of Clearfil Protect Liner F, Clearfil Majesty LV, Panavia V5 or an experimental light-cure coating material were used. For the dual-cure resin cement, either Panavia V5 or Panavia F2.0 were used with Panavia V5 Tooth Primer or ED Primer II. Resin coating does not always contribute to the enhancement of μTBS. The highest μTBS was obtained with the resin coating combination of Clearfil SE Bond 2 and Panavia V5, and cementation with Panavia F2.0, which was identical to that of the direct resin composite bonded with Clearfil SE Bond 2.

show abstract

Influence of cement type and ceramic primer on retention of polymer-infiltrated ceramic crowns to a one-piece zirconia implant

Abstract: Products containing MDP provided a high chemical bond to zirconia. Self-adhesive and adhesive resin cements with low chemical bonding capabilities to zirconia provided retention force values within a small range (220 to 290 N).

Cited by 37 publications

References 38 publications

Chewing simulation of zirconia implant supported restorations

Chewing simulation of zirconia implant supported restorations

Evaluation of retention of two implant supported ceramic crowns using two temporary cements

Enhancement of dentin bond strength of resin cement using new resin coating materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About