Influence of Different Cements on Bonding Efficiency Between Implant Abutments and Standard Restorations.

IF 1.8

The International journal of prosthodontics Pub Date : 2025-09-25 DOI:10.11607/ijp.9127

Laura Haas, Sebastian Hahnel, Angelika Rauch, Martin Rosentritt

{"title":"Influence of Different Cements on Bonding Efficiency Between Implant Abutments and Standard Restorations.","authors":"Laura Haas, Sebastian Hahnel, Angelika Rauch, Martin Rosentritt","doi":"10.11607/ijp.9127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To investigate the efficiency of different cements for luting implant restorations.Materials and methods: Standard restorations were bonded with different cements, including a zinc oxide-based temporary cement (ZOE), a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (GIC), and a resin-based, eugenol-free cement (RBEFC). The restorations were stored under moist conditions and were subsequently subjected to thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML). Retention forces were determined with an axial tensile test, and removability of the restorations was analyzed with a pneumatic crown remover.Results: GIC provided significantly higher retention forces than RBEFC, which provided significantly higher values than ZOE. After storage, retention forces were significantly higher than after TCML. Regarding removability, no significant differences were identified between ZOE and RBEFC, but a significantly higher number of applications was required to remove restorations luted with RBEFC.Conclusions: All cements provided sufficient retention forces, yet removal of restorations might be more demanding if luted with RBEFC.","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"535-537"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9127","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the efficiency of different cements for luting implant restorations.

Materials and methods: Standard restorations were bonded with different cements, including a zinc oxide-based temporary cement (ZOE), a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (GIC), and a resin-based, eugenol-free cement (RBEFC). The restorations were stored under moist conditions and were subsequently subjected to thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML). Retention forces were determined with an axial tensile test, and removability of the restorations was analyzed with a pneumatic crown remover.

Results: GIC provided significantly higher retention forces than RBEFC, which provided significantly higher values than ZOE. After storage, retention forces were significantly higher than after TCML. Regarding removability, no significant differences were identified between ZOE and RBEFC, but a significantly higher number of applications was required to remove restorations luted with RBEFC.

Conclusions: All cements provided sufficient retention forces, yet removal of restorations might be more demanding if luted with RBEFC.

查看原文本刊更多论文

不同粘结剂对种植基台与标准修复体粘结效率的影响

本研究旨在探讨不同水门汀在粘结种植修复体时的效率。用不同的水门汀粘结标准修复体，包括氧化锌基临时水门汀（ZOE）、树脂改性玻璃离聚体水门汀（GIC）和不含丁香酚的树脂基水门汀（RBEFC）。修复体在潮湿条件下保存，随后进行热循环和机械加载（TCML）。通过轴向拉伸试验确定固位力，并使用气动冠去除器分析修复体的可去除性。GIC 提供的固位力明显高于 RBEFC，而 RBEFC 提供的固位力明显高于 ZOE。存放后的固位力明显高于 TCML 后的固位力。在可去除性方面，ZOE 和 RBEFC 之间没有发现明显的差异，但去除用 RBEFC 镶嵌的修复体所需的次数明显较多。所有的水门汀都能提供足够的固位力，但如果使用 RBEFC，去除修复体的要求可能会更高。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

The International journal of prosthodontics

自引率

0.00%

发文量