Premium
Retentive Strength of Metal Copings on Prefabricated Abutments with Five Different Cements
Author(s) -
Maeyama Hideki,
Sawase Takashi,
Jimbo Ryo,
Kamada Koji,
Suketa Naoki,
Fukui Junichi,
Atsuta Mitsuru
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2005.tb00068.x
Subject(s) - glass ionomer cement , materials science , dentistry , universal testing machine , abutment , dental abutments , tukey's range test , ultimate tensile strength , implant , composite material , medicine , mathematics , statistics , civil engineering , surgery , engineering
Background: Despite their wide use in implant dentistry, there is insufficient information concerning the retentive strength of cement‐retained superstructures. Purpose: This study compared the retentive strength of metal copings on prefabricated abutments with five different luting cements. Materials and Methods: Eight prefabricated abutments were placed on titanium screw implants torqued to 35 Ncm. Metal copings were cast with Au‐Pt‐Pd alloy (DeguDent Universal, Degussa, Hanau, Germany) using burnt‐out plastic copings. Cements used were zinc oxide‐eugenol‐free temporary (ZO), zinc phosphate (ZP), glass ionomer (GI), resin‐reinforced glass ionomer (RG), and composite resin (CR) cements. Retentive strength was measured with a universal testing machine. The means of each group were compared by one‐way analysis of variance and Tukey‐Kramer multiple‐comparison intervals at a significance level of p < .05. Results: The mean ± SD retentive strength of the cements in Newtons was ZO 56 ± 12 (Tukey group C), ZP 158 ± 79 (Tukey group B), GI 132 ± 29 (Tukey group B), RG 477 ± 52 (Tukey group A), and CR 478 ± 50 (Tukey group A). Conclusion: The retentive strength of metal copings on implant abutments is somewhat different from those of conventional cemented restorations on natural teeth. These differences may be influenced by differences in surface roughness and the height of the abutment.