Citation Information :
Das A, Alqahtani FA, Abdulaziz F, AlFadel M, AlJabri R, Elkhyat T. Impact of Different Implant Abutment Geometry on Retention of Implant-supported Cement Retained Prosthesis: A Comparative Study. World J Dent 2023; 14 (3):259-262.
Aim: The aim of the current research was to evaluate the impact of dissimilar implant abutment geometry on the retention of implant-supported cemented prosthesis.
Materials and methods: A total of 60 specimens were utilized in the current research. Similarly designed implant abutments having a height of 6.0 mm and 6° taper were allocated to one of the following three groups (20 specimens in each group)—group I—control group, group II—abutment with sandblasting management, and group III—abutments having circumferential grooves. Each specimen was implanted in self-curing acrylic resinous blocks. Every implant abutment was positioned in the respective analog. Alike nickel-chromium (NiCr), cast copings were primed to adapt to every abutment. Individual copings were cemented to relevant abutments using zinc phosphate employing the typical measures. The specimens were consequently subjected to assembly in the Instron universal test equipment and dragged out at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute in anticipation of the metal coping debonding off the abutment.
Results: 1016.44 ± 0.14 was the greatest mean retentive potency noted in abutments having circumferential grooves in pursuit by abutments with sandblasting management at 879.02 ± 0.18 and 358.36 ± 0.26 for the control group. A statistically noteworthy dissimilarity was noted among the three groups with a p-value < 0.001.
Conclusion: Within the study limitations, the current research arrived at a conclusion that better retentive potency was noted in abutments having circumferential grooves compared to abutments with the sandblasting group as well as the control group.
Clinical significance: Many factors influence the retentive capacity of the cement-retained prosthesis. To attain ample retention for implant crowns, surface amendment of the abutments is essential when choosing a cemented prosthesis.
Rinke S, Roediger M, Eickholz P, et al. Technical and biological complications of single-molar implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(9):1024–1030. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12382
Ayad MF, Johnston WM, Rosenstiel SF. Influence of tooth preparation taper and cement type on recementation strength of complete metal crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102(6):354–361. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60192-X
Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18(5):719–728. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14579961/
Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, et al. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90(2):121–132. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00212-9
Wadhwani C, Pineyro A, Hess T, et al. Effect of implant abutment modification on the extrusion of excess cement at the crown-abutment margin for cement-retained implant restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26(6):1241–1246. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22167429/
Ganbarzadeh J, Nakhaei MR, Shiezadeh F, et al. The effect of abutment surface roughness on the retention of implant-supported crowns cemented with provisional luting cement. J Dent Mater Tech 2012;1(1):6–10. https://jdmt.mums.ac.ir/article_84.html
Farzin M, Torabi K, Ahangari AH, et al. Effect of abutment modification and cement type on retention of cement-retained implant supported crowns. J Dent (Tehran) 2014;11(3):256–262. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4290753/
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
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
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
Covey DA, Kent DK, St Germain HA Jr, et al. Effects of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83(3);344–348. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(00)70138-7
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):13–8. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.92921
Kim Y, Yamashita J, Shotwell JL, et al. The comparision 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
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. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22299076/
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. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20664843/