Influence of Different Cements on Bonding Efficiency Between Implant Abutment and Standard Restoration.

Laura Haas, Sebastian Hahnel, Angelika Rauch, Martin Rosentritt
{"title":"Influence of Different Cements on Bonding Efficiency Between Implant Abutment and Standard Restoration.","authors":"Laura Haas, Sebastian Hahnel, Angelika Rauch, Martin Rosentritt","doi":"10.11607/ijp.9127","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to investigate the efficiency of different cements for luting implant restorations. Standard restorations were bonded with different cements, including a zincoxide-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 removabilty of the restorations was analyzed with a pneumatic crown remover. 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. With regard to 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. All cements provided sufficient retention forces, yet removal of restoration might be more demanding if luted with RBEFC.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-14","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

This study aimed to investigate the efficiency of different cements for luting implant restorations. Standard restorations were bonded with different cements, including a zincoxide-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 removabilty of the restorations was analyzed with a pneumatic crown remover. 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. With regard to 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. All cements provided sufficient retention forces, yet removal of restoration might be more demanding if luted with RBEFC.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信