Journal of Oral Implantology December 2014 - (Page 649)

RESEARCH Retentiveness of Various Luting Agents Used With Implant-Supported Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study Pooja Garg, MDS1* Malesh Pujari, MDS2 D. R. Prithviraj, MDS3 Sumit Khare, MDS4 Desired retrievability of cemented implant-supported fixed prosthesis makes the retentive strength of cementing agents an important consideration. The aim of the study was to evaluate the retentiveness of purposely designed implant cement and compare its retentiveness with dental cements that are commonly used with implant systems. Ten implant analogs were embedded in auto-polymerizing acrylic resin blocks and titanium abutments were attached to them. Fifty standardized copings were waxed directly on the abutment and casted. The cements used were: (1) resin-bonded zinc oxide eugenol cement, (2) purposely designed implant cement, (3) zinc phosphate cement, (4) zinc polycarboxylate cement, and (5) glass ionomer cement. After cementation, each sample was subjected to a pull-out test using universal testing machine and loads required to remove the crowns were recorded. The mean values and standard deviations of cement failure loads were analyzed using ANOVA and Bonferroni test. The mean values (6 SD) of loads at failure (n ¼ 10) for various cements were as follows (N): resin-bonded zinc oxide eugenol cement 394.62 (6 9.76), Premier implant cement 333.86 (6 18.91), zinc phosphate cement 629.30 (6 20.65), zinc polycarboxylate cement 810.08 (6 11.52), and glass ionomer cement 750.17 (6 13.78). The results do not suggest that one cement type is better than another, but they do provide a ranking order of the cements regarding their ability to retain the prosthesis and facilitate easy retrievability. Key Words: cement failure load, dental cement, implant supported prosthesis, retentive strength and retrievability INTRODUCTION F ixed implant-supported restorations are an established treatment option for replacing missing teeth. It may be required to retrieve the implant supported prostheses in the event of a biologic or technical complication.1-7 These complications are relatively common,8,9 even in the hands of 1 Private practice, Panipat, Haryana. Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, P.D.U. Dental College, Solapur, Maharashtra. 3 Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Government Dental College and Research Institute, Bangalore. 4 Department of Prosthodontics and Implantology, Bhabha College of Dental Sciences, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. * Corresponding author, e-mail: DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00008 2 experienced clinician.10-14 Therefore, retrievability of implant prosthetic component is a significant safety factor.15 Retrieval of the prostheses may be necessitated by screw loosening, fracture of screw, fracture of abutment, repair or replacement of prosthesis, modification of prosthesis after loss of an implant in case of multiple implant restoration, and surgical intervention. It should also be noted that removal of implant-supported restoration is sometimes needed for better evaluation of oral hygiene. Peri-implant probing is more accurate if prosthesis is removed.15,16 Fixed implant supported restorations are either cemented or screw-retained on the implant abutments. Several arguments, both for and against these two possible ways of fixation, can be found.1 However, there is no consensus as to whether one Journal of Oral Implantology 649

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Journal of Oral Implantology December 2014

Effect of Splinting in Accuracy of Two Implant Impression Techniques
Assessment of the Stress Transmitted to Dental Implants Connected to Screw-Retained Bars Using Different Casting Techniques
Retentiveness of Various Luting Agents Used With Implant-Supported Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study
Role of rhBMP-2 and rhBMP-7 in the Metabolism and Differentiation of Osteoblast-Like Cells Cultured on Chemically Modified Titanium Surfaces
Coated vs Uncoated Implants: Bone Defect Configurations After Progressive Peri-implantitis in Dogs
Why Guided When Freehand Is Easier, Quicker, and Less Costly?
Advanced Platelet-Rich Fibrin: A New Concept for Cell-Based Tissue Engineering by Means of Inflammatory Cells
Flapless Alveolar Ridge Preservation Utilizing the ‘‘Socket-Plug’’ Technique: Clinical Technique and Review of the Literature
Implants Placed in the Nasopalatine Canal to Rehabilitate Severely Atrophic Maxillae: A Retrospective Study With Long Follow-up
Severe Mandibular Atrophy Treated With a Subperiosteal Implant and Simultaneous Graft With rhBMP-2 and Mineralized Allograft: A Case Report
Full-Mouth Rehabilitation of a Patient With Ectodermal Dysplasia With Dental Implants
The 2-Visit CAD-CAM Implant-Retained Overdenture: A Clinical Report
Assessment of Implant-Related Treatment With Edited Three-Dimensional Reconstructed Images From Cone-Beam Computerized Tomography: A Technical Note
Retrieval of a Separated Implant Screwdriver Fragment
Correction of Esthetic Complications of a Malpositioned Implant: A Case Letter
Fixed Partial Denture Treatment With Mini Dental Implants
Replacement of an Implant and Prosthesis in the Premaxilla Due to a Malposition and Prosthetic Failure: A Clinical Case Letter
A New Restorative Technique for the Perishing Implant Due to Abutment Screw Fracture
Fit of CAD/CAM Implant Frameworks: A Comprehensive Review

Journal of Oral Implantology December 2014