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 Prosthodontics
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Prosthodont 29 (2016), No. 1     12. Jan. 2016
Int J Prosthodont 29 (2016), No. 1  (12.01.2016)

Page 83-90, doi:10.11607/ijp.4317, PubMed:26757337


Is There a Correlation Between Tensile Strength and Retrievability of Cemented Implant-Retained Crowns Using Artificial Aging?
Mehl, Christian / Ali, Shurouk / Bahra, Shadi El / Harder, Sönke / Vollrath, Oliver / Kern, Matthias
Purpose: The main goal of this in-vitro study was to evaluate whether tensile strength and retrievability of cemented implant-retained crowns correlate when using artificial aging.
Materials and Methods: A total of 128 crowns were fabricated from a cobalt-chromium alloy for 128 tapered titanium abutments (6 degrees taper, 4.3 mm diameter, 4 mm length, Camlog). The crowns were cemented with glass-ionomer (Ketac Cem, 3M) or resin cements (Multilink Implant, Telio CS Cem [Ivoclar Vivadent], Retrieve [Parkell]). Multilink Implant was used without priming. The experimental groups were subjected to either 37,500 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C, 1,200,000 chewing cycles, or a combination of both. Control groups were stored for 10 days in deionized water. The crowns were removed with a universal testing machine or a clinically used removal device (Coronaflex, KaVo). Data were statistically analyzed using nonparametrical tests.
Results: Retention values were recorded between 31 N and 362 N. Telio CS Cem showed the lowest retention values, followed by Retrieve, Ketac Cem, and Multilink Implant (P ≤ .0001). The number of removal attempts with the Coronaflex were not significantly different between the cements (P > .05). Thermal cycling and chewing simulation significantly influenced the retrieval of Retrieve Telio CS Cem, and Ketac Cem specimens (P ≤ .05). Only for Multilink Implant and Telio CS Cem correlations between removal with the universal testing machine and the Coronaflex could be revealed (P ≤ .0001).
Conclusions: Ketac Cem and Multilink Implant (without silane) can be used for a semipermanent cementation. Retrieve and Telio CS Cem are recommendable for a temporary cementation.