Effects of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns.

David A Covey, D. K. Kent, Henry A St Germain Jr, S. Koka

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

78 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The assumption that increasing the diameter of the abutment/crown components will provide greater resistance to crown loosening forces than standard-sized components has not been reported either with clinical trials or in the laboratory. PURPOSE: This study attempted to determine what effect abutment dimension and type of luting agent have on the retention of the prosthetic crown. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Test specimens consisted of standard, wide, and "experimental" CeraOne titanium abutments and matching CeraOne gold cylinders cemented with a zinc phosphate permanent or a zinc oxide eugenol provisional cement. The mean uniaxial force (Newtons) and the load (MPa) required to dislodge the cylinder from the abutment was determined. Statistical analysis of the sample data was performed using a 2-way analysis of variance test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Mean uniaxial resistance force (Newtons) was significantly greater for zinc phosphate cement than for zinc oxide cement (P <. 001). Abutment size was a significant factor when permanent luting cement is used (P <.001). Retention strength per unit area (MPa) of the wide abutments was lower than the standard size and "experimental" abutments. CONCLUSION: Permanent luting cement produced uniaxial retention forces approximately 3 times greater than provisional cement. The increase in surface area provided by a wide abutment did not result in an improvement in retention strength over the standard abutment.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)344-348
Number of pages5
JournalThe Journal of prosthetic dentistry
Volume83
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2000

Fingerprint

Crowns
Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement
Zinc Phosphate Cement
Dental Cements
Zinc Oxide
Statistical Data Interpretation
Titanium
Gold
Analysis of Variance
Clinical Trials

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

Effects of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns. / Covey, David A; Kent, D. K.; St Germain Jr, Henry A; Koka, S.

In: The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, Vol. 83, No. 3, 01.01.2000, p. 344-348.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Covey, David A ; Kent, D. K. ; St Germain Jr, Henry A ; Koka, S. / Effects of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns. In: The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2000 ; Vol. 83, No. 3. pp. 344-348.
@article{74e8f949809248b09a719e000afa93e9,
title = "Effects of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns.",
abstract = "STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The assumption that increasing the diameter of the abutment/crown components will provide greater resistance to crown loosening forces than standard-sized components has not been reported either with clinical trials or in the laboratory. PURPOSE: This study attempted to determine what effect abutment dimension and type of luting agent have on the retention of the prosthetic crown. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Test specimens consisted of standard, wide, and {"}experimental{"} CeraOne titanium abutments and matching CeraOne gold cylinders cemented with a zinc phosphate permanent or a zinc oxide eugenol provisional cement. The mean uniaxial force (Newtons) and the load (MPa) required to dislodge the cylinder from the abutment was determined. Statistical analysis of the sample data was performed using a 2-way analysis of variance test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Mean uniaxial resistance force (Newtons) was significantly greater for zinc phosphate cement than for zinc oxide cement (P <. 001). Abutment size was a significant factor when permanent luting cement is used (P <.001). Retention strength per unit area (MPa) of the wide abutments was lower than the standard size and {"}experimental{"} abutments. CONCLUSION: Permanent luting cement produced uniaxial retention forces approximately 3 times greater than provisional cement. The increase in surface area provided by a wide abutment did not result in an improvement in retention strength over the standard abutment.",
author = "Covey, {David A} and Kent, {D. K.} and {St Germain Jr}, {Henry A} and S. Koka",
year = "2000",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70138-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "83",
pages = "344--348",
journal = "Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry",
issn = "0022-3913",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Effects of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns.

AU - Covey, David A

AU - Kent, D. K.

AU - St Germain Jr, Henry A

AU - Koka, S.

PY - 2000/1/1

Y1 - 2000/1/1

N2 - STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The assumption that increasing the diameter of the abutment/crown components will provide greater resistance to crown loosening forces than standard-sized components has not been reported either with clinical trials or in the laboratory. PURPOSE: This study attempted to determine what effect abutment dimension and type of luting agent have on the retention of the prosthetic crown. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Test specimens consisted of standard, wide, and "experimental" CeraOne titanium abutments and matching CeraOne gold cylinders cemented with a zinc phosphate permanent or a zinc oxide eugenol provisional cement. The mean uniaxial force (Newtons) and the load (MPa) required to dislodge the cylinder from the abutment was determined. Statistical analysis of the sample data was performed using a 2-way analysis of variance test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Mean uniaxial resistance force (Newtons) was significantly greater for zinc phosphate cement than for zinc oxide cement (P <. 001). Abutment size was a significant factor when permanent luting cement is used (P <.001). Retention strength per unit area (MPa) of the wide abutments was lower than the standard size and "experimental" abutments. CONCLUSION: Permanent luting cement produced uniaxial retention forces approximately 3 times greater than provisional cement. The increase in surface area provided by a wide abutment did not result in an improvement in retention strength over the standard abutment.

AB - STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The assumption that increasing the diameter of the abutment/crown components will provide greater resistance to crown loosening forces than standard-sized components has not been reported either with clinical trials or in the laboratory. PURPOSE: This study attempted to determine what effect abutment dimension and type of luting agent have on the retention of the prosthetic crown. METHODS AND MATERIAL: Test specimens consisted of standard, wide, and "experimental" CeraOne titanium abutments and matching CeraOne gold cylinders cemented with a zinc phosphate permanent or a zinc oxide eugenol provisional cement. The mean uniaxial force (Newtons) and the load (MPa) required to dislodge the cylinder from the abutment was determined. Statistical analysis of the sample data was performed using a 2-way analysis of variance test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Mean uniaxial resistance force (Newtons) was significantly greater for zinc phosphate cement than for zinc oxide cement (P <. 001). Abutment size was a significant factor when permanent luting cement is used (P <.001). Retention strength per unit area (MPa) of the wide abutments was lower than the standard size and "experimental" abutments. CONCLUSION: Permanent luting cement produced uniaxial retention forces approximately 3 times greater than provisional cement. The increase in surface area provided by a wide abutment did not result in an improvement in retention strength over the standard abutment.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034145156&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034145156&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70138-7

DO - 10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70138-7

M3 - Article

VL - 83

SP - 344

EP - 348

JO - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

JF - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

SN - 0022-3913

IS - 3

ER -