Retention of crowns cemented on implant abutments with temporary cements

Abstract

This study was to examine the retentive force of crowns to implant abutments with commercial temporary cements. Six different temporary cements were investigated. Cast crowns were cemented to the abutments using each cement and their retentive forces to abutments were determined 7 or 28 days after cementing (n=10). The retentive force of the cements to abutments varied widely among the products [27-109 N (7-day), 18-80 N (28-days)]. The retentive force of all the cements was not reduced as the time elapsed, except for two products tested. The polycarboxylate cements and paste-mixing type eugenol-free cements revealed comparable retentive force after 28 days of storage. The powder-liquid type cements showed a positive correlation (p<0.05) between the retentive force and the shear strength, while a negative correlation (p<0.05) was obtained for paste-mixing type cement between the retentive force and compressive strength. Mechanical strength of temporary cements could not be a prominent predicting factor for retention of the crowns on the abutments.

In Vitro Fit and Cementation Resistance of Provisional Crowns for Single Implant-Supported Restorations

“…Although calcium hydroxide-based cements have been used as temporary luting agents (7,10), there is little information available in the literature correlating its mechanical properties and retention. However, it has been suggested that mechanical strength of commercial luting agents could not be a predicting factor for crown retention to implant abutments (11). Further studies are required to help understanding the luting agent's behavior.…”

“…Multiple factors in oral environment such as temperature change, pH and occlusal forces affect properties and retention of provisional luting agents (6). Several studies reported the use of non-eugenol zinc oxide and calcium hydroxidebased luting agents in the clinical practice for temporary cementation of implant-supported crowns (7)(8)(9)(10)(11).…”

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

“…In order to satisfy these requirements, temporary cements can be favorably used for this type of implant prosthesis. 4 The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of two temporary crown cements (Resin based cement and Eugenol Free Zinc oxide cement) on the retention of two titanium implant supported crowns made of (Polymer infiltrated hybrid glass ceramic and Yttrium stabilized tetragonal zirconia).…”

Effect of the Unfilled Space Size of the Abutment Screw Access Hole on the Extruded Excess Cement and Retention of Single Implant Zirconia Crowns

“…However, insufficient retention and frequent decementation of the restoration are common consequences when a provisional cement is used . In addition to the tensile strength of the cement, retention is influenced by other factors such as axial wall tapering, surface roughness, and height and width of the abutment …”

“…13 In addition to the tensile strength of the cement, retention is influenced by other factors such as axial wall tapering, surface roughness, and height and width of the abutment. 7,9,13 Different techniques have been proposed to reduce the amount of excess cement extruded at the margin of cemented implant restorations, including venting and reducing the amount of loaded cement in the crown. 10,12,14,15 However, the effects of such techniques on retention of the crowns are not clearly understood.…”