Retention of different temporary cements tested on zirconia crowns and titanium abutments in vitro

Tensile bond strength of CAD-CAM all ceramic crowns before and after thermomechanical aging

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the tensile bond strength (TBS) of resin nanoceramics (RNC), zirconia, and lithium disilicate (LS2) restorations cemented to titanium abutments before and after thermomechanical aging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve specimens per group were fabricated to determine the TBS between a titanium abutment and four types of crown materials (2 RNCs, LS2, and translucent zirconia crowns for the maxillary molar). After milling, the abutments and crowns were cemented with resin cement after air-particle abrasion. In addition, thermomechanical aging (200,000 cycles, 50 N, 2 Hz) was applied to half of the specimens by using a mastication simulator. TBS was measured by using a universal testing machine. The interface between the crown and the cement was observed by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Two-way ANOVA was performed to analyze the effects of crown materials and thermomechanical aging. Failure-mode and interface analyses were also conducted.

RESULTS

After thermomechanical aging, the TBS decreased in the LS2 specimens and increased in RNCs (p < 0.001). The ratio of mixed failure and debonding with the hole-sealing resin increased in the RNC group. SEM images showed the reduced gap between the crown and the resin cement after thermomechanical aging in the RNC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in TBS were affected by the crown materials after thermomechanical aging. After thermomechanical aging, the RNC crowns showed increased TBS, whereas LS2 and zirconia crowns exhibited decreased or similar TBS.

Comparison of marginal leakage and retentive strength of implant-supported milled zirconia and cobalt-chromium copings cemented with different temporary cements

Background

Few studies assessed the effect of coping material (particularly milled metal copings) on the retentive strength of cements and reported contradictory results. Thus, this study aims to assess the marginal leakage and retentive strength of implant-supported milled zirconia and cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) copings cemented with different temporary cements.

Materials and Methods

In this in vitro study, Zirconia and Co-Cr copings were fabricated on 100 straight titanium abutments. Each group of copings was divided into five subgroups (n = 10) for the use of different cements: permanent zinc-phosphate (ZP) cement, temporary zinc oxide eugenol cement (temp bond [TB]), calcium hydroxide-based temporary cement (Dycal [DC]), polymer-based eugenol-free acrylic-urethane temporary cement (Dentotemp [DT]), and methacrylate-based temporary cement (Implantlink [IL]). The retentive strength and marginal leakage of restorations were assessed. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, Tukey, and Fisher's exact tests (α = 0.05).

Results

In the Co-Cr group, the retentive strength values (in Newtons) were as follows: ZP (411.40 ± 5.19) >DC (248.80 ± 5.01) >IL (200.10 ± 5.06) >DT (157.90 ± 5.19) >TB (98.50 ± 6.88). This order was as follows in the zirconia group: ZP (388.70 ± 5.35) >DC (226.60 ± 5.08) >IL (179.00 ± 3.71) >DT (136.00 ± 4.88) >TB (78.60 ± 3.50). All pairwise comparisons were statistically significant (P < 0.001). The difference in marginal leakage was not significant among the groups (P = 0.480).

Conclusion

The type of coping material and cement type significantly affected retentive strength, but not marginal leakage, of implant restorations. Milled Co-Cr copings showed higher retentive strength than zirconia copings, and ZP cement followed by DC yielded the highest retention.

An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Various Luting Cements on the Retention of Implant-Supported Metal Crowns

Background and objective Cement-retained prostheses have replaced screw-retained prostheses as the preferred restoration in recent years in order to overcome the latter's limitations. In this study, four different luting cements were compared to evaluate their efficacy on the retention of cement-based metal crowns to implant abutments. Materials and methods In the right and left first molar regions, four implant analogs (Internal Hex, Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd., Tel-Aviv, Israel) were screwed into epoxy resin casts (Araldite CY 230-1 IN, India) that were positioned perpendicular to the cast's plane. Four metal copings were created and cemented. Group A: polycarboxylate cement (DUR) (DurelonTM, 3M Espe, St. Paul, MN); Group B: PANAVIA™ F 2.0 dual-cure resin cement (Kuraray America, Inc., New York, NY); Group C: resin-modified glass ionomer (3M™ RelyX™ Luting, 3M Espe); and Group D: non-eugenol temporary resin cement (Kerr-Temp, KaVo Kerr, Brea, CA) were used to cement crowns. To check the retention capacity, samples were put through a pull-out test on an Instron universal testing machine (TSI‑Tecsol, Bengaluru, India) with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Each coping's de-cementing load was noted, and average values for every sample were computed and statistically analyzed. Results The findings demonstrated that non-eugenol temporary resin implant cement has the lowest retention value at 138.256 N, followed by resin-modified glass ionomer cement at 342.063 N, polycarboxylate luting cement at 531.362 N, and resin cement at 674.065 N. The average difference in retentive strength across all four groups was statistically very significant (p=0.001). Conclusion Based on our findings, non-eugenol temporary resin implant cement enables simple retrievability of the prosthesis in the event of a future failure and is appropriate for implant restorations with cement retention. Also, cements made of polycarboxylate and resin have the highest retention values.

Retention force, translucency, and microstructural properties of translucent temporary luting cements: An in vitro study

The aim of the study was to investigate the retention behaviour (pull-off force include adhesive remnant index = ARI) as well as translucency of various temporary luting cements and use microstructure elucidation methods to formulate explanatory approaches to their mode of action. The retention force of the temporary luting cements Provicol QM Plus (P+), Provicol QM Aesthetic (Pae), Bifix Temp (BiT), and as a reference a glass ionomer cement Meron (M) with a direct (Structur 3/S3) or an indirect (Structure CAD/SCAD) resin-based composite restauration was investigated after accelerated aging (thermocycling). Additional investigation of the physical properties was performed regarding to translucency and surface free energy. The microstructure was evaluated by X-ray diffraction, thermogravimetric analysis, differential scanning calorimetry and micro X-ray computed tomography. All tested temporary luting cements showed different pull-off forces in the range between 3.0 and 16.8 N in combination with S3 or SCAD after thermocycling. Only BiT with S3 showed pull-off forces of 129.2 N and complete retention on the restoration (ARI = 0), which was significant (p < .001) to all other samples. High translucency (BiT > Pae > M > P+) was observed for materials with lower crystalline content and low residual mass (usally resulting from higher organic content). M showed the highest surface free energy with a predominantly polar fraction, while BiT had a predominantly dispersive fraction. The highest porosity was observed in the coronal region of the restoration. The results suggest that translucency of temporary luting cements can be increased with higher organic and lower cryristall content. All combinations of cements and temporary restorations (direct/indirect; with the exception of BiT/S3) showed pull-off forces below 17 N (equivalent to a weight force of ∼1.7 kg), which allows manual detachment of the restoration by the dentist.