We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25 (2010), No. 6     15. Dec. 2010
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25 (2010), No. 6  (15.12.2010)

Page 1145-1152, PubMed:21197491


Effects of a Cementing Technique in Addition to Luting Agent on the Uniaxial Retention Force of a Single-Tooth Implant-Supported Restoration: An In Vitro Study
Santosa, Robert E. / Martin, William C. / Morton, Dean
Purpose: Excess residual cement around the implant margin has been shown to be detrimental to the peri-implant tissue. This in vitro study examines the retentive strengths of two different cementing techniques and two different luting agents on a machined titanium abutment and solid screw implants. The amount of reduction of excess cement weight between the two cementation techniques was assessed.
Materials and Methods: Forty gold castings were fabricated for 4.1 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length solid-screw dental implants paired with 5.5-mm machined titanium abutments. Twenty implants received a provisional cement, and 20 implants received a definitive cement. Each group was further divided into two groups. In the control group, cement was applied and the castings seated over the implant-abutment assembly. The excess cement was then removed. In the study group, a "practice abutment" was used to express excess cement prior to cementation. The weight of the implant-casting assembly was measured and the residual weight of cement was calculated. The samples were then stored for 24 hours at 100% humidity prior to tensile strength testing.
Results: Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in tensile strength across the groups. Further Tukey tests showed no significant difference in tensile strength between the practice abutment technique and the conventional technique for both definitive and provisional cements. There was a significant reduction in residual cement weight, irrespective of the type of cement, when the practice abutment was used prior to cementation.
Conclusions: Cementation of implant restorations on a machined abutment using the practice abutment technique and definitive cement may provide similar uniaxial retention force and significantly reduced residual cement weight compared to the conventional technique of cement removal.

Keywords: cementation, dental cement, dental implants, tensile strength