J Adv Prosthodont.  2018 Oct;10(5):381-387. 10.4047/jap.2018.10.5.381.

Influence of abutment height and convergence angle on the retrievability of cement-retained implant prostheses with a lingual slot

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea. kblee@knu.ac.kr
  • 2Department of Dental Science, Graduate School, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.
  • 3Advanced Dental Device Development Institute, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

PURPOSE
Cement-retained implant prostheses can lack proper retrievability during repair, and residual cement can cause peri-implantitis. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of abutment height and convergence angle on the retrievability of cement-retained implant prostheses with lingual slots, known as retrievable cement-type slots (RCS).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We fabricated six types of titanium abutments (10 of each type) with two different heights (4 mm and 6 mm), three different convergence angles (8°, 10°, and 12°), a sloped shoulder margin (0.6 mm depth), a rectangular shape (6 mm × 6.5 mm) with rounded edges, and a rectangular ledge (2 mm × 1 mm) for the RCS. One monolithic zirconia crown was fabricated for each abutment using a dental computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing system. The abutments and crowns were permanently cemented together with dual-curing resin cement, followed by 24 hours in demineralized water at room temperature. Using a custom-made device with a slot driver and torque gauge, we recorded the torque (N·cm) required to remove the crowns. Statistical analysis was conducted using multiple regression analysis and Mann-Whitney U tests (α=.05).
RESULTS
Removal torques significantly decreased as convergence angles increased. Multiple regression analysis showed no significant interaction between the abutment height and the convergence angle (Durbin-Watson ratio: 2.186).
CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of this in vitro study, we suggest that the retrievability of cement-retained implant prostheses with RCS can be maintained by adjusting the abutment height and convergence angle, even when they are permanently cemented together.

Keyword

Lingual slot; Cement-retained implant prostheses; Abutment; Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM); Retrievability

MeSH Terms

Crowns
In Vitro Techniques
Peri-Implantitis
Prostheses and Implants*
Resin Cements
Shoulder
Titanium
Torque
Water
Resin Cements
Titanium
Water

Figure

  • Fig. 1 Specimen diagram used in this experiment. (A) Lingual view; (B) Distal view; (C) Occlusal view; Ø: diameter; R: arc diameter; a: abutment height (4 mm and 6 mm); b: convergence angle (8°, 10°, and 12°).

  • Fig. 2 Three-dimensional design of abutment (A) and fabricated titanium abutment (B).

  • Fig. 3 Specimens before (A) and after (B) the fabrication of the retrievable cement-type slot (RCS).

  • Fig. 4 The custom-made device used for measuring removal torque in this experiment.

  • Fig. 5 Graphs illustrating the variables obtained through multiple regression analysis. (A) Graph A demonstrates a negative correlation between convergence angle and removal torque (R2 = 0.9719), and (B) Graph B demonstrates a positive correlation between abutment height and removal torque (R2 = 0.9997).


Reference

1. Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby Inc;1999. p. 549–593.
2. Misch CE. Screw-retained versus cement-retained implant supported prostheses. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1995; 7:15–18.
3. Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 77:28–35.
Article
4. Chee W, Felton DA, Johnson PF, Sullivan DY. Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: which is better? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14:137–141.
5. Ekfeldt A, Carlsson GE, Börjesson G. Clinical evaluation of single-tooth restorations supported by osseointegrated implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994; 9:179–183.
6. Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Bogacki MT, Tietge JD. Use of luting agents with an implant system: Part I. J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 68:737–741.
Article
7. Valbao FP Jr, Perez EG, Breda M. Alternative method for retention and removal of cement-retained implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2001; 86:181–183.
Article
8. Clausen GF. The lingual locking screw for implant-retained restorations--aesthetics and retrievability. Aust Prosthodont J. 1995; 9:17–20.
9. Doerr J. Simplified technique for retrieving cemented implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88:352–353.
Article
10. Daher T, Morgano SM. The use of digital photographs to locate implant abutment screws for implant-supported cement-retained restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2008; 100:238–239.
Article
11. Wadhwani C, Chung KH. Simple device for locating the abutment screw position of a cement-retained implant restoration. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109:272–274.
Article
12. Prestipino V, Ingber A, Kravitz J, Whitehead GM. A practical approach for retrieving cement-retained, implant-supported restorations. Quintessence Dent Technol. 2001; 24:182–187.
13. Schweitzer DM, Berg RW, Mancia GO. A technique for retrieval of cement-retained implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2011; 106:134–138.
Article
14. Elshiyab SH, Nawafleh N, Öchsner A, George R. Fracture resistance of implant-supported monolithic crowns cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments: zirconia-based crowns vs. lithium disilicate crowns. J Adv Prosthodont. 2018; 10:65–72.
Article
15. Rödiger M, Rinke S, Ehret-Kleinau F, Pohlmeyer F, Lange K, Bürgers R, Gersdorff N. 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; 6:233–240.
Article
16. Mehl C, Harder S, Shahriari A, Steiner M, Kern M. Influence of abutment height and thermocycling on retrievability of cemented implant-supported crowns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27:1106–1115.
17. Mehl C, Harder S, Schwarz D, Steiner M, Vollrath O, Kern M. In vitro influence of ultrasonic stress, removal force preload and thermocycling on the retrievability of implant-retained crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23:930–937.
Article
18. Pintinha M, Camarini ET, Sábio S, Pereira JR. Effect of mechanical loading on the removal torque of different types of tapered connection abutments for dental implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 110:383–388.
Article
19. Mehl C, Harder S, Steiner M, Vollrath O, Kern M. Influence of cement film thickness on the retention of implant-retained crowns. J Prosthodont. 2013; 22:618–625.
Article
20. Abbo B, Razzoog ME, Vivas J, Sierraalta M. Resistance to dislodgement of zirconia copings cemented onto titanium abutments of different heights. J Prosthet Dent. 2008; 99:25–29.
Article
21. Safari S, Hosseini Ghavam F, Amini P, Yaghmaei K. Effects of abutment diameter, luting agent type, and re-cementation on the retention of implant-supported CAD/CAM metal copings over short abutments. J Adv Prosthodont. 2018; 10:1–7.
Article
22. Covey DA, Kent DK, St Germain HA Jr, Koka S. Effects of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 83:344–348.
Article
23. Bresciano M, Schierano G, Manzella C, Screti A, Bignardi C, Preti G. Retention of luting agents on implant abutments of different height and taper. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005; 16:594–598.
Article
24. Mehl C, Harder S, Wolfart M, Kern M, Wolfart S. Retrievability of implant-retained crowns following cementation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008; 19:1304–1311.
Article
25. Heinemann F, Mundt T, Biffar R. Retrospective evaluation of temporary cemented, tooth and implant supported fixed partial dentures. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2006; 34:86–90.
Article
26. Lim HP, Yoo JM, Park SW, Yang HS. Fracture load of implant-supported zirconia all-ceramic crowns luted with various cements. Int J Prosthodont. 2010; 23:361–363.
27. Arrais CA, Giannini M, Rueggeberg FA, Pashley DH. Microtensile bond strength of dual-polymerizing cementing systems to dentin using different polymerizing modes. J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 97:99–106.
Article
28. Lührs AK, De Munck J, Geurtsen W, Van Meerbeek B. Composite cements benefit from light-curing. Dent Mater. 2014; 30:292–301.
Article
29. Youm SH, Jung KH, Son SA, Kwon YH, Park JK. Effect of dentin pretreatment and curing mode on the microtensile bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015; 7:317–322.
Article
30. Pan YH, Lin CK. The effect of luting agents on the retention of dental implant-supported crowns. Chang Gung Med J. 2005; 28:403–410.
31. Harder S, Dimaczek B, Açil Y, Terheyden H, Freitag-Wolf S, Kern M. Molecular leakage at implant-abutment connection--in vitro investigation of tightness of internal conical implant-abutment connections against endotoxin penetration. Clin Oral Investig. 2010; 14:427–432.
Article
32. Chaar MS, Att W, Strub JR. Prosthetic outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed dental restorations: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2011; 38:697–711.
Article
Full Text Links
  • JAP
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr