Influence of cement type and ceramic primer on retention of polymer-infiltrated ceramic crowns to a one-piece zirconia implant

Abstract Statement of problem The best procedure for cementing a restoration to zirconia implants has not yet been established. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the retention of polymer-infiltrated ceramic crowns to zirconia 1-piece implants using a wide range of cements. Th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2018-01, Vol.119 (1), p.138-145
Hauptverfasser: Rohr, Nadja, Dr med dent, Brunner, Stefan, Dr med dent, Märtin, Sabrina, Fischer, Jens, Prof Dr med dent, Dr rer nat
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Statement of problem The best procedure for cementing a restoration to zirconia implants has not yet been established. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the retention of polymer-infiltrated ceramic crowns to zirconia 1-piece implants using a wide range of cements. The effect of ceramic primer treatment on the retention force was also recorded. The retention results were correlated with the shear bond strength of the cement to zirconia and the indirect tensile strength of the cements to better understand the retention mechanism. Material and methods The retention test was performed using 100 polymer-infiltrated ceramic crowns (Vita Enamic) and zirconia implants (ceramic.implant CI) The crowns were cemented with either temporary cement (Harvard Implant semipermanent, Temp Bond), glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem), self-adhesive cement (Perma Cem 2.0, RelyX Unicem Automix 2, Panavia SA), or adhesive cement (Multilink Implant, Multilink Automix, Vita Adiva F-Cem, RelyX Ultimate, Panavia F 2.0, Panavia V5 or Panavia 21) (n=5). Additionally ceramic primer was applied on the intaglio crown surface and implant abutment before cementation for all adhesive cements (Multilink Implant, Multilink Automix: Monobond plus; RelyX Ultimate Scotchbond Universal; Vita Adiva F-Cem: Vita Adiva Zr-Prime; Panavia F2.0, Panavia V5: Clearfil Ceramic Primer) and 1 self-adhesive cement containing 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP) (Panavia SA: Clearfil Ceramic Primer). Crown debond fracture patterns were recorded. Shear bond strength was determined for the respective cement groups to polished zirconia (n=6). The diametral tensile strength of the cements was measured (n=10). Statistical analysis was performed using 1-way or 2-way analysis of variance followed by the Fisher LSD test (α=.05) within each test parameter. Results Adhesive and self-adhesive resin cements had shear bond strength values of 0.0 to 5.3 MPa and revealed similar retention forces. Cements containing MDP demonstrated shear bond strength values above 5.3 MPa and displayed increased retention. The highest retention values were recorded for Panavia F 2.0 (318 ±28 N) and Panavia 21 (605 ±82 N). All other adhesive and self-adhesive resin cements attained retention values between 222 ±16 N (Multilink Automix) and 270 ±26 N (Panavia SA), which were significantly higher ( P
ISSN:0022-3913
1097-6841
DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.02.002