Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.56(3) > 1099093

Kim and Lee: Effect of internal gap on retentivity in implant fixed prosthesis with lingual slot

Abstract

Purpose

Recently, a method of forming a slot in the prosthesis lingual has been introduced to solve the occlusal and aesthetic disadvantages of screw-retained prosthesis in the manufacture of implant-fixed prosthesis and to ensure retrievability in cement retained prostheses. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of the internal gap on the removal of the prosthesis in the preparation of cement-retained implant prostheses with lingual slots.

Materials and methods

Titanium abutment and internal gap of the zirconia prosthesis to be attached to the upper part were set to 30, 35, and 50 µm, respectively. Three for each type total 15 were produced for each type. The zirconia prosthesis formed a retrievable cement-type slot with a space of 1 mm at the location where the titanium abutment meets the shelf area. Autocatalytic resin cement was used for bonding of abutment and zirconia prosthesis, and the maximum removal stress value was measured in units of Ncm by using the customized equipment of the cemented specimen. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the three groups by statistical analysis (α = .05), modified by post hoc test the Mann-Whitney U-test and the Bonferroni correction method were used to compare the two methods (α = .017).

Results

There was no statistically significant difference in removal stress between the 30 µm group and the 35 µm group in the internal gap (P = .032), and there was a significant difference between the 30 µm group and the 50 µm group, between the 35 µm group and the 50 µm group (P < .017).

Conclusion

Thus, the internal gap of computer-aided design affected the retention between the zirconia prosthesis and the titanium abutment. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2018;56:206-11)

REFERENCES

1.Jarman JM., Hamalian T., Randi AP. Comparing the fracture resistance of alternatively engineered zirconia abutments with original equipment manufactured abutments with different implant connection designs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017. 32:992–1000.
crossref
2.Lee KB. Considerations of occlusion for implant-supported flxed prostheses. J Korean Dent Assoc. 2013. 51:242–9.
3.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.
crossref
4.Chee W., Felton DA., Johnson PF., Sullivan DY. Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: which is better? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999. 14:137–41.
5.Chung CH., Son MK., Kim SG. Clinical evaluation of retained preload and cement washout in screw- and cement-retained implant prosthesis. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2015. 53:301–9.
crossref
6.Chaar MS., Att W., Strub JR. Prosthetic outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed dental restorations: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2011. 38:697–711.
crossref
7.Chung CH., Son MK. The classification and comparison of implant prosthesis according to types of retention. Part I: screw retained prosthesis vs cement retained prosthesis. Implantology. 2010. 14:138–51.
8.Chung CH., Son MK. The classification and comparison of implant prosthesis according to types of retention. Part II: screw-cement retained prosthesis. Implantology. 2011. 15:58–70.
9.Prestpino V., Ingber A., Kravitz J., Whitehead GM. A practical approach for retrieving cement-retained, implant-supported restorations. Quintessence Dent Technol. 2001. 24:182–7.
10.Schweitzer DM., Berg RW., Mancia GO. A technique for retrieval of cement-retained implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2011. 106:134–8.
crossref
11.Eames WB., O'Neal SJ., Monteiro J., Miller C., Roan JD Jr., Cohen KS. Techniques to improve the seating of castings. J Am Dent Assoc. 1978. 96:432–7.
crossref
12.Dixon DL., Breeding LC., Lilly KR. Use of luting agents with an implant system: Part II. J Prosthet Dent. 1992. 68:885–90.
crossref
13.Vermilyea SG., Kuf‡er MJ., Huget EF. The effects of die relief agent on the retention of full coverage castings. J Prosthet Dent. 1983. 50:207–10.
crossref
14.Hembree JH Jr., Cooper EW Jr. Effect of die relief on retention of cast crowns and inlays. Oper Dent. 1979. 4:104–7.
15.Breeding LC., Dixon DL., Bogacki MT., Tietge JD. Use of luting agents with an implant system: Part I. J Prosthet Dent. 1992. 68:737–41.
crossref
16.Heinemann F., Mundt T., Biffar R. Retrospective evaluation of temporary cemented, tooth and implant supported flxed partial dentures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2006. 34:86–90.
17.Pan YH., Lin CK. The effect of luting agents on the retention of dental implant-supported crowns. Chang Gung Med J. 2005. 28:403–10.
18.Harder S., Dimaczek B., Açil Y., Terheyden H., Freitag-Wolf S., Kern M. Molecular leakage at implant-abutment connection—in vitro investigation of tightness of internal conical implant-abutment connections against endotoxin penetration. Clin Oral Investig. 2010. 14:427–32.
crossref
19.Kyrios DM., Duke ES., Windeler AS. Glass-ionomer cement film thickness and working time. J Prosthet Dent. 1989. 62:533–6.
crossref
20.Hembree JH Jr., George TA., Hembree ME. Film thickness of cements beneath complete crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1978. 39:533–5.
crossref
21.Mehl C., Harder S., Steiner M., Vollrath O., Kern M. In‡uence of cement fllm thickness on the retention of implant-retained crowns. J Prosthodont. 2013. 22:618–25.

Fig. 1.
(A) Specimen diagram (unit mm), (B) 3-dimensional design of abutment.
jkap-56-206f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Illustration of cementation gap setting, using Ceramill mind software.
jkap-56-206f2.tif
Fig. 3.
Specimens before (left) and after (right) the fabrication of retrievable cement-type slot.
jkap-56-206f3.tif
Fig. 4.
The custom-made device used for measuring removal torque in this experiment.
jkap-56-206f4.tif
Fig. 5.
Removal torque values according to internal gap: Character ∗ indicates significant difference by Mann-Whitney U-test at α = 0.017.
jkap-56-206f5.tif
Table 1.
Material properties of RelyX U200, used in this experiment
Flexural strengtd 99 MPa
Compressive strength 291 MPa
Surface hardness 190 MPa
Film thickness 13 µm
Table 2.
Removal torque values according to internal gap (Ncm)
Internal gap (µm) n Min. Max. Mean SD
30 5 50.7 55.5 52.9 2.2
35 5 44.6 51.5 47.9 2.6
50 5 38.7 41.9 40.3 1.3
TOOLS
Similar articles