Retentive strength of two-piece CAD/CAM zirconia implant abutments.

PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to evaluate the retention of two-piece computer-aided design (CAD)/computer aided manufacturing (CAM) zirconia abutments after artificial aging under simulated oral conditions using three different types of resin-based luting agents. MATERIAL AND METHODS Twenty-one CAD/CAM-generated zirconia copings (CERCON Compartis, Degudent, Hanau, Germany) were bonded to a prefabricated secondary titanium implant insert (XiVE Ti-Base, Dentsply Friadent, Mannheim, Germany), using three different types of resin-based luting agents: group A: Panavia 21 (Kuraray Co, Kurashiki, Japan); group B: Multilink Implant (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein); and group C: SmartCem2 (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany). The bonding surfaces of the titanium inserts and the zirconia ceramic copings were air-abraded and cleaned in alcohol. All specimens were stored in distilled water for 60 days and subsequently thermal-cycled 15,000 times (5-55 °C). The dislodging force of the copings along the long axis of the implant/abutment complex was recorded using a universal testing machine with 2 mm/min crosshead speed. Data were analyzed descriptively and by performing the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS The mean retention values were 924.93 ± 363.31 N for Panavia 21, 878.05 ± 208.33 N for Multilink Implant, and 650.77 ± 174.92 N for SmartCem2. The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated no significant difference between the retention values of the tested luting agents (p = 0.1314). The failure modes of all tested two-piece abutments were completely adhesive, leaving the detached zirconia coping and titanium insert undamaged. CONCLUSION The use of resin-based luting agents in combination with air abrasion of titanium inserts and zirconia copings led to a stable retention of two-piece CAD/CAM abutments. The bonding stability of the investigated luting agents exceeded the general limits of fracture resistance of two-piece zirconia abutments. A notable difference between the mean retention values of the tested bond materials was shown. However, the statistical analysis revealed that this difference was not significant.

[1]  Stefan Wolfart,et al.  Retrievability of implant-retained crowns following cementation. , 2008, Clinical oral implants research.

[2]  Allan W Estey,et al.  Tensile bond strengths of five luting agents to two CAD-CAM restorative materials and enamel. , 2003, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  P. Vallittu,et al.  Load-bearing capacity of custom-made versus prefabricated commercially available zirconia abutments. , 2011, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[4]  P. Glantz,et al.  The mucosal attachment at different abutments. An experimental study in dogs. , 1998, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[5]  M. Toledano,et al.  Influence of surface treatments and resin cement selection on bonding to densely-sintered zirconium-oxide ceramic. , 2009, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[6]  Antonio Scarano,et al.  Inflammatory infiltrate, microvessel density, nitric oxide synthase expression, vascular endothelial growth factor expression, and proliferative activity in peri-implant soft tissues around titanium and zirconium oxide healing caps. , 2006, Journal of periodontology.

[7]  H. Kahn,et al.  Influence of contamination and cleaning on bond strength to modified zirconia. , 2009, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[8]  Irena Sailer,et al.  Single-tooth implant reconstructions: esthetic factors influencing the decision between titanium and zirconia abutments in anterior regions. , 2007, The European journal of esthetic dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Esthetic Dentistry.

[9]  Daniel Edelhoff,et al.  To what extent does the longevity of fixed dental prostheses depend on the function of the cement? Working Group 4 materials: cementation. , 2007, Clinical oral implants research.

[10]  M. Welander,et al.  The mucosal barrier at implant abutments of different materials. , 2008, Clinical oral implants research.

[11]  F. Nejatidanesh,et al.  Retention of implant-supported zirconium oxide ceramic restorations using different luting agents. , 2013, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  A. Tsiftsoglou,et al.  Genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of different types of dental cement on normal cultured human lymphocytes. , 2009, Mutation research.

[13]  D. Watts,et al.  Cytotoxicity of four categories of dental cements. , 2009, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[14]  U. Brodbeck.  The ZiReal Post: A new ceramic implant abutment. , 2003, Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.].

[15]  C. Hämmerle,et al.  Bending moments of zirconia and titanium abutments with internal and external implant-abutment connections after aging and chewing simulation. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[16]  Hiok Chai Quek,et al.  Load fatigue performance of conical implant-abutment connections. , 2011, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[17]  M. Kern,et al.  Retention of zirconia ceramic copings bonded to titanium abutments. , 2007, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[18]  M. Kern,et al.  Bonding to zirconia ceramic: adhesion methods and their durability. , 1998, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[19]  R. Jung,et al.  In vitro study of the influence of the type of connection on the fracture load of zirconia abutments with internal and external implant-abutment connections. , 2009, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[20]  Van P Thompson,et al.  Marginal accuracy of three implant-ceramic abutment configurations. , 2012, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[21]  M. Kern,et al.  Long-term resin bond strength to zirconia ceramic. , 2000, The journal of adhesive dentistry.