Effect of screw access hole or vent hole opening strategies on the adhesive filling rate of oral implant cement-retained posterior crowns.

IF 2.9 3区综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES

PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-05-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0323092

Long Li, Xiaodong Sun, Huangjun Zhou, Min Liu, Cai Wen

{"title":"Effect of screw access hole or vent hole opening strategies on the adhesive filling rate of oral implant cement-retained posterior crowns.","authors":"Long Li, Xiaodong Sun, Huangjun Zhou, Min Liu, Cai Wen","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0323092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study investigated the adhesive filling rate (AFR) of implant prostheses on the abutment shoulder and axial surfaces under various hole opening strategies,and examined the correlation between hole openings and permanent adhesive retention strength.Methods: Implant crowns were divided into five groups: No hole (NH); Occlusal regular hole (ORH: 2.5 mm); Occlusal mini-hole (OMH: 1 mm); Lateral upper mini-hole (LUMH: 1 mm); and Lateral down mini-hole (LDMH: 1 mm). In the AFR experiment, abutments and prostheses were connected with two-color silicone rubber; the coverage of rubber at the inner surface of the prostheses was photographed. Images were analyzed by ImageJ software. In the adhesive retention strength experiment, prostheses and abutments were bonded using permanent resin cement; retention strength was measured using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Welch's ANOVA, followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference test.Results: Abutment shoulder AFRs were OMH (98.70 ± 0.42%), LDMH (98.40 ± 1.30%), LUMH (97.92 ± 1.33%), NH (93.99 ± 5.45%), and ORH (86.11 ± 4.90%). One-way ANOVA revealed significant difference among groups (p < 0.001). Axial AFRs were LUMH (99.2 ± 0.47%), ORH (98.3 ± 0.8%), OMH (98.1 ± 0.5%), LDMH (97.9 ± 1.06%), and NH (96.4 ± 4.5%),Welch's ANOVA indicated no significant difference between groups (p = 0.054). In the retention strength experiment, OMH had the highest retention force (369.58 ± 27.27 N), whereas ORH had the lowest (272.81 ± 41.43 N), showing significant differences (p = 0.002).Conclusions: Implant screw access hole or vent hole opening strategies affected AFR of implant cement-retained posterior crowns. Larger holes or no openings decreased AFR at the abutment shoulder, whereas axial AFR was less affected. Hole openings variations on implant cement-retained posterior crowns might also influence their retention strength.","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 5","pages":"e0323092"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12080807/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323092","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study investigated the adhesive filling rate (AFR) of implant prostheses on the abutment shoulder and axial surfaces under various hole opening strategies,and examined the correlation between hole openings and permanent adhesive retention strength.

Methods: Implant crowns were divided into five groups: No hole (NH); Occlusal regular hole (ORH: 2.5 mm); Occlusal mini-hole (OMH: 1 mm); Lateral upper mini-hole (LUMH: 1 mm); and Lateral down mini-hole (LDMH: 1 mm). In the AFR experiment, abutments and prostheses were connected with two-color silicone rubber; the coverage of rubber at the inner surface of the prostheses was photographed. Images were analyzed by ImageJ software. In the adhesive retention strength experiment, prostheses and abutments were bonded using permanent resin cement; retention strength was measured using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Welch's ANOVA, followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference test.

Results: Abutment shoulder AFRs were OMH (98.70 ± 0.42%), LDMH (98.40 ± 1.30%), LUMH (97.92 ± 1.33%), NH (93.99 ± 5.45%), and ORH (86.11 ± 4.90%). One-way ANOVA revealed significant difference among groups (p < 0.001). Axial AFRs were LUMH (99.2 ± 0.47%), ORH (98.3 ± 0.8%), OMH (98.1 ± 0.5%), LDMH (97.9 ± 1.06%), and NH (96.4 ± 4.5%),Welch's ANOVA indicated no significant difference between groups (p = 0.054). In the retention strength experiment, OMH had the highest retention force (369.58 ± 27.27 N), whereas ORH had the lowest (272.81 ± 41.43 N), showing significant differences (p = 0.002).

Conclusions: Implant screw access hole or vent hole opening strategies affected AFR of implant cement-retained posterior crowns. Larger holes or no openings decreased AFR at the abutment shoulder, whereas axial AFR was less affected. Hole openings variations on implant cement-retained posterior crowns might also influence their retention strength.

查看原文本刊更多论文

螺钉接入孔或通气孔开放策略对口腔种植体骨水泥保留后冠粘接剂填充率的影响。

目的：研究不同开孔策略下种植体在基肩和轴表面的粘接剂填充率（AFR），并探讨开孔与永久粘接剂保持强度的关系。方法：种植冠分为5组：无孔组（NH）；咬合规则孔（ORH: 2.5 mm）；咬合微孔（OMH: 1mm）；上侧微孔（LUMH: 1mm）；横向下小井眼（LDMH: 1mm）。在AFR实验中，基台与假体用双色硅橡胶连接；拍摄假体内表面橡胶覆盖情况。采用ImageJ软件对图像进行分析。在粘接强度实验中，假体与基台采用永久树脂水泥进行粘接；保留强度采用万能试验机测定。数据分析采用单因素方差分析（ANOVA）或Welch's方差分析，然后采用Tukey's诚实显著性差异检验。结果:桥台的肩膀误判率OMH(98.70±0.42%),LDMH(98.40±1.30%),LUMH(97.92±1.33%),NH(93.99±5.45%),ORH(86.11±4.90%)。单因素方差分析显示各组间差异有统计学意义(p)。结论：种植体螺钉通路孔或通气孔开放策略影响种植体骨水泥保留后冠的AFR。较大的孔或不开孔可降低基肩的AFR，而轴向AFR受影响较小。种植体骨水泥保留后牙冠的孔开度变化也可能影响其固位强度。

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

PLoS ONE 生物-生物学

CiteScore

6.20

自引率

5.40%

发文量

14242

审稿时长

3.7 months

期刊介绍： PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage