Evaluation of debonding force of screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns cemented to abutments of different designs and surface treatments

被引:0
|
作者
Khalifa, Ahmed Abdel Latif [1 ]
Metwally, Nayrouz Adel [2 ]
Khamis, Mohamed Moataz [2 ]
机构
[1] Alexandria Univ, Fac Dent, Clin Master Oral Implantol Program, Alexandria, Egypt
[2] Alexandria Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Prosthodont, Alexandria, Egypt
来源
JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY | 2025年 / 133卷 / 01期
关键词
RETENTIVE STRENGTH;
D O I
10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.01.026
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Statement of problem. Straight preparable abutments provide an alternative to titanium bases (Ti- bases) for single-unit screw-retained implant-supported restorations. However, the debonding force between crowns with a screw access channel cemented to preparable abutments and Ti-bases of different designs and surface treatments is unclear. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the debonding force of screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns cemented to straight preparable abutments and Ti- bases of different designs and surface treatments. Material and methods. Forty laboratory implant analogs (Straumann Bone Level) were embedded into epoxy resin blocks that were randomly divided into 4 groups (n=10 each) according to the abutment type used: CEREC group, Variobase group, airborne-particle abraded Variobase group, and airborne-particle abraded straight preparable abutment group. All specimens were restored with lithium disilicate crowns and cemented with resin cement to the corresponding abutments. They were thermocycled (from 5 to 55 degrees C for 2000 cycles) followed by cyclic loading (120 000 cycles). The tensile forces required to debond the crowns from the corresponding abutments were measured (N) by using a universal testing machine. The ShapiroeWilk test of normality was used. Comparison between the study groups was done with 1-way ANOVA (a=.05). Results. Tensile debonding force values were significantly different according to the type of abutment used (P<.05). The highest retentive force value was recorded in the straight preparable abutment group (928.1 +/- 222.2 N) followed by the airborne-particle abraded Variobase group (852.6 +/- 164.6 N), and the CEREC group (498.8 +/- 136.6 N); the lowest value was reported in the Variobase group (158.6 +/- 85.2 N). Conclusions. The retention of screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns cemented to airborne-particle abraded straight preparable abutments is significantly higher than to non-surface treated Ti-bases and similar to airborne-particle abraded ones. Abrading abutments with 50-mm Al2O3 significantly increased the debonding force of the lithium disilicate crowns. (J Prosthet Dent 2025;133:215-20)
引用
收藏
页码:215 / 220
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Effect of different surface treatments on the retention force of additively manufactured interim implant-supported crowns
    Filokyprou, Thaleia
    Kesterke, Matthew J.
    Liu, Xiaohua
    Cho, Seok-Hwan
    Revilla-Leon, Marta
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2024, 33 (09): : 899 - 907
  • [32] Retentive strength of implant-supported CAD-CAM lithium disilicate crowns on zirconia custom abutments using 6 different cements
    Sellers, Krysta
    Powers, John M.
    Kiat-amnuay, Sudarat
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2017, 117 (02): : 247 - 252
  • [33] Adhesive Strength of the Luting Technique for Passively Fitting Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Prostheses: An In Vitro Evaluation
    Menini, Maria
    Pera, Francesco
    Migliorati, Marco
    Pesce, Paolo
    Pera, Paolo
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2015, 28 (01) : 37 - 39
  • [34] Effect of surface treatments on the retention of implant-supported cement-retained bridge with short abutments: An in vitro comparative evaluation
    Shrivastav, Monica
    JOURNAL OF INDIAN PROSTHODONTIC SOCIETY, 2018, 18 (02): : 154 - 160
  • [35] CEMENTED AND SCREW-RETAINED IMPLANT-SUPPORTED RESTORATIONS MAY HAVE A COMPARABLE RISK FOR PERI-IMPLANT MUCOSITIS AND PERI-IMPLANTITIS
    Majid, Omer Waleed
    JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED DENTAL PRACTICE, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [36] The Effect of Different Surface Treatments on Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Restorations
    Kurt, Murat
    Kulunk, Tolga
    Ural, Cagri
    Kulunk, Safak
    Danisman, Sengul
    Savas, Soner
    JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2013, 39 (01) : 44 - 51
  • [37] Trueness and adaptation of screw-retained implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns fabricated using 3-dimensional gel deposition
    Sun, Zhe
    Li, Yuan
    Zhao, Jing
    Zheng, Yuanna
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2025, 133 (01): : 229e1 - 229e7
  • [38] A 7.5-year randomized controlled clinical study comparing cemented and screw-retained one-piece zirconia-based implant-supported single crowns
    Kraus, Riccardo D.
    Hjerppe, Jenni
    Naenni, Nadja
    Balmer, Marc
    Jung, Ronald E.
    Thoma, Daniel S.
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2024, 35 (12) : 1669 - 1675
  • [39] In vitro performance and fracture resistance of pressed or CAD/CAM milled ceramic implant-supported screw-retained or cemented anterior FDPs
    Zacher, Julian
    Bauer, Robert
    Krifka, Stephanie
    Rosentritt, Martin
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTIC RESEARCH, 2021, 65 (02) : 208 - 212
  • [40] Fracture resistance of implant- supported monolithic crowns cemented to zirconia hybrid-abutments: zirconia-based crowns vs. lithium disilicate crowns
    Elshiyab, Shareen H.
    Nawafleh, Noor
    Ochsner, Andreas
    George, Roy
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED PROSTHODONTICS, 2018, 10 (01): : 65 - 72