Effects of sandblasting of prosthetic abutment surfaces on the tensile strength of cement-retained crowns, using a cementing technique: an in vitro study

F. Igai, Matsuyoshi Mori, I. Contin, W. Júnior, P. Neto
{"title":"Effects of sandblasting of prosthetic abutment surfaces on the tensile strength of cement-retained crowns, using a cementing technique: an in vitro study","authors":"F. Igai, Matsuyoshi Mori, I. Contin, W. Júnior, P. Neto","doi":"10.11606/ISSN.2357-8041.CLRD.2017.130950","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The tensile strength effects on the sandblasting of the abutment associated with a cementing technique are not well documented. The objective of this study is to analyze the tensile strength of prosthetic crowns cemented on standard and sandblasted abutments, using a cementing technique. Methods: Experimental groups were formed according to ce­menting technique (control and practice abutment technique) and prosthetic abutment roughness (standard and sandblas­ted), totaling forty specimens. The crowns were cemented with Zinc Phosphate cement. Statistical analysis was conducted with an α at 0.05. Results: Considering the cementation techniques analysis, there were no statistically significant differen­ces between the groups, with mean tensile strength values of 157.83±22.16 N for the control technique, and 159.95±46.40 N for the practice abutment technique on the standard surface. Result analysis of the control technique (626.23±34.80 N) and practice abutment technique (642.62±94.00 N) indicated no significant differences on the sandblasted surface. Consi­dering the surface roughness analysis, significant differences were observed, with values of 157.83±22.16 N for the control technique/standard surface group and 626.23±34.80 N for the control technique/sandblasted surface group. Significant differences were observed in the practice abutment technique/standard surface group with 159.95±46.40 N values, compa­red to the 642.62±94.00 N value for the practice abutment technique/sandblasted group. Conclusions: The practice abut­ment cementing technique showed no significant differences with the control technique, regarding to the tensile strength, in the two surfaces (standard and sandblasted) used in the study. The sandblasting of prosthetic abutments led to a signifi­cant increase on the tensile strength considering the two studied cementation techniques.","PeriodicalId":10204,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Laboratorial Research in Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Laboratorial Research in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11606/ISSN.2357-8041.CLRD.2017.130950","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

Objective: The tensile strength effects on the sandblasting of the abutment associated with a cementing technique are not well documented. The objective of this study is to analyze the tensile strength of prosthetic crowns cemented on standard and sandblasted abutments, using a cementing technique. Methods: Experimental groups were formed according to ce­menting technique (control and practice abutment technique) and prosthetic abutment roughness (standard and sandblas­ted), totaling forty specimens. The crowns were cemented with Zinc Phosphate cement. Statistical analysis was conducted with an α at 0.05. Results: Considering the cementation techniques analysis, there were no statistically significant differen­ces between the groups, with mean tensile strength values of 157.83±22.16 N for the control technique, and 159.95±46.40 N for the practice abutment technique on the standard surface. Result analysis of the control technique (626.23±34.80 N) and practice abutment technique (642.62±94.00 N) indicated no significant differences on the sandblasted surface. Consi­dering the surface roughness analysis, significant differences were observed, with values of 157.83±22.16 N for the control technique/standard surface group and 626.23±34.80 N for the control technique/sandblasted surface group. Significant differences were observed in the practice abutment technique/standard surface group with 159.95±46.40 N values, compa­red to the 642.62±94.00 N value for the practice abutment technique/sandblasted group. Conclusions: The practice abut­ment cementing technique showed no significant differences with the control technique, regarding to the tensile strength, in the two surfaces (standard and sandblasted) used in the study. The sandblasting of prosthetic abutments led to a signifi­cant increase on the tensile strength considering the two studied cementation techniques.
假体基台表面喷砂对水泥保留冠抗拉强度的影响:一项体外研究
目的:与胶结技术相关的基台喷砂的抗拉强度影响尚未得到很好的记录。本研究的目的是分析使用胶结技术在标准基台和喷砂基台上胶结的假冠的抗拉强度。方法:按改良技术(对照和实践基牙技术)和修复基牙粗糙度(标准和沙化)组成实验组,共40个标本。冠用磷酸锌胶粘剂粘接。采用α = 0.05进行统计学分析。结果:结合固接技术分析,两组间的抗拉强度差异无统计学意义,对照组的抗拉强度平均值为157.83±22.16 N,而练习基台技术的抗拉强度平均值为159.95±46.40 N。结果对照技术(626.23±34.80 N)与实践基台技术(642.62±94.00 N)在喷砂面无显著差异。考虑表面粗糙度分析,观察到显著差异,控制技术/标准表面组的值为157.83±22.16 N,控制技术/喷砂表面组的值为626.23±34.80 N。实践基台技术/标准表面组的N值为159.95±46.40,而实践基台技术/喷砂组的N值为642.62±94.00,差异有统计学意义。结论:在研究中使用的两个表面(标准表面和喷砂表面),实践基台固井技术与对照技术在抗拉强度方面无显著差异。考虑到所研究的两种胶结技术,喷砂对义齿基台的抗拉强度有显著的提高。
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