English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background  Removal of cement-retained implant fixed restorations when needed, can be challenging. Conventional methods of crown removal are time consuming and costly for patients and practitioners. This research explored the use of two different types of pulsed erbium lasers as a non-invasive tool to retrieve cemented zirconia crowns from zirconia implant abutments.    Materials and methods  Twenty identical zirconia crowns were cemented onto 20 identical zirconia prefabricated abutments using self-adhesive resin cement. The specimens were divided into two groups for laser assisted crown removal; G1 for erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser (Er:YAG), and G2 for erbium, chromium-doped yttrium, scandium, gallium and garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG). For the G1, after the first crown removal, the specimens were re-cemented and removed again using the Er:YAG laser. Times needed to remove the crowns were recorded and analyzed using ANOVA (α = 0.05). The surfaces of the crown and the abutment were further examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) analyses.    Results  The average times of zirconia crown removal from zirconia abutments were 5 min 20 sec and 5 min 15 sec for the Er:YAG laser of first and second experiments (G1), and 5 min 55 sec for the Er,Cr:YSGG laser experiment (G2). No statistical differences were observed among the groups. SEM and EDS examinations of the materials showed no visual surface damaging or material alteration from the two pulsed erbium lasers.    Conclusions  Both types of pulsed erbium lasers can be viable alternatives for retrieving a zirconia crown from a zirconia implant abutment. Despite operating at different wavelengths, the Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers, perform similarly in removing a zirconia crown from a zirconia implant abutment with similar parameters. There are no visual and elemental composition damages as a result of irradiation with pulsed erbium lasers.

Exploring the use of pulsed erbium lasers to retrieve a zirconia crown from a zirconia implant abutment