The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Effect of Surface Modifications on the Retention of Implant-supported Cement-retained Crowns with Short Abutments: An In Vitro Study

Kaumudhi Kalla, Sudheer Arunachalam, Sidhartha Shakti Prasad Behera, Jagadish Konchada, Srikanth Lankapalli, Lakshmi Vanisetti

Keywords : Bur modification, Cement-retained restoration, Circumferential groove, Glass ionomer cement, Implant-supported, Short abutments

Citation Information : Kalla K, Arunachalam S, Behera SS, Konchada J, Lankapalli S, Vanisetti L. Effect of Surface Modifications on the Retention of Implant-supported Cement-retained Crowns with Short Abutments: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (12):1451-1456.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3242

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 10-05-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The study aimed to evaluate and compare the effect of incorporating one circumferential groove and bur modification on retention of cast copings on implant abutment cemented with glass ionomer cement. Materials and methods: Fifteen straight shoulder implant abutments casted of height 6 mm used with corresponding 12 mm long stainless steel implant analog. The abutments were divided into three groups of five abutments in each group. Group I: Control group, without any surface modification, Group II: Milling of a circumferential groove, and Group III: Bur modification by creating punches of size whole round bur diameter 5 per axial surfaces. Glass ionomer definitive cement was used to adhere the cast copings to each group of abutments. After thermocycling, the specimens were evaluated for retention using the Instron Universal Testing Machine\'s pull-out test. The data were analyzed using One-way ANOVA, followed by the Tukey post-hoc test to compare the load among the three groups. Results: According to the findings, the inclusion of a circumferential groove (Group II) increased the retention of glass ionomer cement maintained implant-supported crowns by 44.58%. The bur modification (Group III) boosted glass ionomer cement maintained implant-supported crown retention by 110.69% while retaining retrievability. Results were statistically significant. Conclusion: Bur modification revealed more retention when compared to the groove and control group. Clinical significance: Short abutments are used in the clinical situation where interarch space is less. To achieve adequate retention of the implant crowns, surface modification of the abutments is necessary while selecting a cement-retained prosthesis.


PDF Share
  1. Lewinstein I, Block L, Lehr Z, et al. An in vitro assessment of circumferential grooves on the retention of cement-retained implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2011;106(6):367–372. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60149-2.
  2. Sahu N, Lakshmi N, Azhagarasan NS, et al. Comparison of the effect of implant abutment surface modifications on retention of implant-supported restoration with a polymer-based cement. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(1):239–242. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/7877.3931.
  3. Montenegro AC, Machado AN, Depes Gouvêa CV. Tensile strength of cementing agents on the CeraOne system of dental prosthesis on implants. Implant Dent 2008;17(4):451–460. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e31818c4947.
  4. Rismanchian M, Davoudi A, Shadmehr E. Effect of using nano and micro airborne abrasive particles on bond strength of implant abutment to the prosthesis. Braz Dent J 2015;26(1):50–55. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201300173.
  5. Kim Y, Yamashita J, Shotwell JL, et al. The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95(6):450–455. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.03.020.
  6. Squier RS, Agar JR, Duncan JP, et al. Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16(6):793–798. PMID: 11769829.
  7. Potts RG, Shillingburg HT Jr, Duncanson MG Jr. Retention and resistance of preparations for cast restorations. 1980. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92(3):207–212. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.03.025.
  8. Rödiger M, Rinke S, Ehret-Kleinau F, et al. Evaluation of removal forces of implant-supported zirconia copings depending on abutment geometry, luting agent and cleaning method during re-cementation. J Adv Prosthodont 2014;6(3):233–240. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2014.6.3.233.
  9. Rosentritt M, Schneider-Feyrer S, Behr M, et al. In vitro shock absorption tests on implant-supported crowns: influence of crown materials and luting agents. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018;33(1):116–122. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.5463.
  10. Al Hamad KQ, Al Rashdan BA, Abu-Sitta EH. The effects of height and surface roughness of abutments and the type of cement on bond strength of cement-retained implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22(6):638–644. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02011.x.
  11. Güncü MB, Cakan U, Canay S. Comparison of 3 luting agents on retention of implant-supported crowns on 2 different abutments. Implant Dent 2011;20(5):349–353. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e318225f68e.
  12. Pan YH, Lin TM, Liu PR, et al. Effect of luting agents on retention of dental implant-supported prostheses. J Oral Implantol 2015;41(5): 596–599. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00161.
  13. Da Silva JD, Kazimiroff J, Papas A, et al. Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network Group. Outcomes of implants and restorations placed in general dental practices: a retrospective study by the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145(7):704–713. DOI: 10.14219/jada.2014.27.
  14. Weber HP, Sukotjo C. Does the type of implant prosthesis affect outcomes in the partially edentulous patient? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22 Suppl:140–172 [Erratum in: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008 Jan-Feb;23(1):56]. PMID: 18437795.
  15. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Glantz PO, et al. The mucosal attachment at different abutments. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1998;25(9):721–727. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051x.1998.tb02513.x.
  16. Lee MY, Heo SJ, Park EJ, et al. Comparative study on stress distribution around internal tapered connection implants according to fit of cement-and screw-retained prostheses. J Adv Prosthodont 2013;5(3):312–318. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2013.5.3.312.
  17. Saleh Saber F, Abolfazli N, Nuroloyuni S, et al. Effect of abutment height on retention of single cement-retained, wide-and narrow-platform implant-supported restorations. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2012;6(3):98–102. DOI: 10.5681/joddd.2012.021.
  18. Mansour A, Ercoli C, Graser G, et al. Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002;13(4):343–348. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130401.x.
  19. Felton DA, Kanoy BE, White JT. The effect of surface roughness of crown preparations on retention of cemented castings. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58(3):292–296. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(87)90043-6.
  20. Sheets JL, Wilcox C, Wilwerding T. Cement selection for cement-retained crown technique with dental implants. J Prosthodont 2008;17(2):92–96. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00262.x.
  21. de Campos TN, Adachi LK, Miashiro K, et al. Effect of surface topography of implant abutments on retention of cemented single-tooth crowns. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2010;30(4):409–413. PMID: 20664843.
  22. Cano-Batalla J, Soliva-Garriga J, Campillo-Funollet M, et al. Influence of abutment height and surface roughness on in vitro retention of three luting agents. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27(1):36–41. PMID: 22299076.
  23. Keum EC, Shin SY. A comparison of retentive strength of implant cement depending on various methods of removing provisional cement from implant abutment. J Adv Prosthodont 2013;5(3): 234–240. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2013.5.3.234.
  24. Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Ebrahimi M, et al. Retentiveness of implant-supported metal copings using different luting agents. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012;9(1):13–18. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.92921.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.