- Email: [email protected]
Surface and luting agent effects on tensile strength
Table 2.—Bivariate Relationships Between Potential Predictive Variables and Case Status Cases (n)
% or Mean (SD)
Controls (n)
% or Mean (SD)
p-value
Preoperative variables Age Extent of root destruction R4 carious of restored coronal and root surfaces Molar Prior restoration Amalgam Composite Full coverage crown No prior restoration Female Extent of coronal destruction Student Clinic Intraoperative variables Temporary materials Bis-GMA Bis-acrylic composite PMMA PEMA Crown preparation to permanent cementation (months) Postoperative variables Postcementation tooth sensitivity Crown cementation to endodontic access (months)
66 66 66
54.8 (13.9) 0.17 (0.48) 10.6
66 66
66 66 66
62.1 68.2 6.1 22.7 1.5 51.5 2.58 (0.70) 48.2
49
71 71
71 71 71
59.7 (10.8) 0.04 (0.20) 2.8 47.9 56.3 9.9 28.2 4.2 59.2 2.48 (0.77) 51.8
48
65
6.1 24.5 57.1 10.2 2.4 (2.7)
66
54.6
65
67 71 71
0.023 0.056 0.067 0.096 0.204
0.370 0.445 0.944 0.636
68
0.0 20.8 47.9 25.0 25. (2.2)
0.771
71
5.6
<0.001
13.0 (10.4)
(Reprinted from J Endod, 32, Kirakozova A, Caplan DJ, Predictors of root canal treatment in teeth with full coverage restorations, 727-730, Copyright (2006), with permission from American Association of Endodontists.)
Clinical Significance.—Although predicting the future is impossible, objectifying the odds of success gives us an edge on deciding, for example, whether or not an abutment tooth should be crowned before completing a restorative case. Looked at here are nonprocedural factors influencing future pulp vitality.
Kirakozova A, Caplan DJ: Predictors of root canal treatment in teeth with full coverage restorations. J Endod 32:727-730, 2006 Reprints available from A Kirakozova, Dept of Endodontics, The Univ of North Carolina, School of Dentistry, CB# 7450, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; e-mail: [email protected]
Implants Surface and luting agent effects on tensile strength Background.—Implants are widely accepted to replace missing teeth. Immediate loading of implants in partially edentulous regions have exceeded 80%, and further improvements in implant surfaces may increase this value. Re-
112
Dental Abstracts
tention of the provisional restoration is a key component in achieving successful osseointegration. The surface roughness and luting agents are factors under the control of the clinician that can increase retention. The retention of
to demonstrate the tensile strength of the luting agent/surface combination. Statistical analysis tests were carried out for the various combinations. Results.—A significant interaction was found between surface conditions and provisional luting agents. Tensile strength was significantly higher for provisional crowns luted with Life and TempBond NE than for those luted with TempBond and Zone without respect for surface condition (Fig 3). Life and Zone luting agents produced similar tensile strength at all surface conditions. The combination of TempBond NE and airborne-particle-n-abraded surface produced statistically greater tensile strength than the other combinations. TempBond tensile strength did not differ depending on surface condition except for the unaltered surfaces, when it was significantly lower.
Fig 3.—Average and standard deviation (SD) of ultimate tensile strength. Twelve combinations (four different luting agents and three different surfaces) were evaluated (n = 10 for each combination). (Reprinted from J Prosthet Dent, 95, Kim Y, Yamashita J, Shotwell JL, et al, The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns, 450-455, Copyright (2006), with permission from The Editorial Council of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.)
provisional restorations achieved with various combinations of abutment surface roughness and provisional luting agents was investigated. Methods.—Three groups of 10 each of solid titanium implant abutments 4 mm high were studied. Ten abutments had no change, 10 were abraded using airborne particles of 50-m aluminum oxide, and 10 were subjected to a mediumroughness diamond rotary cutting instrument. Next, 30 implant analogs were mounted in acrylic resin blocks, with a solid titanium implant abutment placed in each implant analog. Four provisional acrylic resin crowns were fabricated for each abutment and then various provisional luting agents were applied. The luting agents studied were TempBond, TempBond NE, Life, and Zone. After each crown was placed, the abutment was exposed to ultrasonic cleaning and then another provisional crown was luted with another agent. Specimens were stored in 100% humidity for 1 day at room temperature and then tested. The crowns were pulled from the abutments in a universal testing machine
Discussion.—Significantly higher tensile strength values were obtained for Life and TempBond NE luting agents compared to TempBond and Zone. Abutment surface condition did not influence this difference. Modifying the surface of the implant abutment may not be necessary when Life or Zone is used as a provisional luting agent. TempBond NE has improved retention when the surface is subjected to airborne-particle abrasion. TempBond has improved retention with surfaces modified by airborne-particle abrasion or treatment with a diamond rotary cutting instrument.
Clinical Significance.—Interest in immediate loading of implants increases and with the increased use of this approach, the need to adequately secure provisional restorations also increases. Explored here is which combination of provisional luting agent and implant surface preparation affords the greatest retentive strength.
Kim Y, Yamashita J, Shotwell JL, et al: The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 95:450-455, 2006 Reprints available from J Yamashita, Dept of Biologic and Materials Sciences, Div of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Univ of Michigan, 1011 N University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1078; fax: 734747-2110; e-mail: [email protected]
Volume 52
Issue 2
2007
113
% or Mean (SD)
Controls (n)
% or Mean (SD)
p-value
Preoperative variables Age Extent of root destruction R4 carious of restored coronal and root surfaces Molar Prior restoration Amalgam Composite Full coverage crown No prior restoration Female Extent of coronal destruction Student Clinic Intraoperative variables Temporary materials Bis-GMA Bis-acrylic composite PMMA PEMA Crown preparation to permanent cementation (months) Postoperative variables Postcementation tooth sensitivity Crown cementation to endodontic access (months)
66 66 66
54.8 (13.9) 0.17 (0.48) 10.6
66 66
66 66 66
62.1 68.2 6.1 22.7 1.5 51.5 2.58 (0.70) 48.2
49
71 71
71 71 71
59.7 (10.8) 0.04 (0.20) 2.8 47.9 56.3 9.9 28.2 4.2 59.2 2.48 (0.77) 51.8
48
65
6.1 24.5 57.1 10.2 2.4 (2.7)
66
54.6
65
67 71 71
0.023 0.056 0.067 0.096 0.204
0.370 0.445 0.944 0.636
68
0.0 20.8 47.9 25.0 25. (2.2)
0.771
71
5.6
<0.001
13.0 (10.4)
(Reprinted from J Endod, 32, Kirakozova A, Caplan DJ, Predictors of root canal treatment in teeth with full coverage restorations, 727-730, Copyright (2006), with permission from American Association of Endodontists.)
Clinical Significance.—Although predicting the future is impossible, objectifying the odds of success gives us an edge on deciding, for example, whether or not an abutment tooth should be crowned before completing a restorative case. Looked at here are nonprocedural factors influencing future pulp vitality.
Kirakozova A, Caplan DJ: Predictors of root canal treatment in teeth with full coverage restorations. J Endod 32:727-730, 2006 Reprints available from A Kirakozova, Dept of Endodontics, The Univ of North Carolina, School of Dentistry, CB# 7450, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; e-mail: [email protected]
Implants Surface and luting agent effects on tensile strength Background.—Implants are widely accepted to replace missing teeth. Immediate loading of implants in partially edentulous regions have exceeded 80%, and further improvements in implant surfaces may increase this value. Re-
112
Dental Abstracts
tention of the provisional restoration is a key component in achieving successful osseointegration. The surface roughness and luting agents are factors under the control of the clinician that can increase retention. The retention of
to demonstrate the tensile strength of the luting agent/surface combination. Statistical analysis tests were carried out for the various combinations. Results.—A significant interaction was found between surface conditions and provisional luting agents. Tensile strength was significantly higher for provisional crowns luted with Life and TempBond NE than for those luted with TempBond and Zone without respect for surface condition (Fig 3). Life and Zone luting agents produced similar tensile strength at all surface conditions. The combination of TempBond NE and airborne-particle-n-abraded surface produced statistically greater tensile strength than the other combinations. TempBond tensile strength did not differ depending on surface condition except for the unaltered surfaces, when it was significantly lower.
Fig 3.—Average and standard deviation (SD) of ultimate tensile strength. Twelve combinations (four different luting agents and three different surfaces) were evaluated (n = 10 for each combination). (Reprinted from J Prosthet Dent, 95, Kim Y, Yamashita J, Shotwell JL, et al, The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns, 450-455, Copyright (2006), with permission from The Editorial Council of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.)
provisional restorations achieved with various combinations of abutment surface roughness and provisional luting agents was investigated. Methods.—Three groups of 10 each of solid titanium implant abutments 4 mm high were studied. Ten abutments had no change, 10 were abraded using airborne particles of 50-m aluminum oxide, and 10 were subjected to a mediumroughness diamond rotary cutting instrument. Next, 30 implant analogs were mounted in acrylic resin blocks, with a solid titanium implant abutment placed in each implant analog. Four provisional acrylic resin crowns were fabricated for each abutment and then various provisional luting agents were applied. The luting agents studied were TempBond, TempBond NE, Life, and Zone. After each crown was placed, the abutment was exposed to ultrasonic cleaning and then another provisional crown was luted with another agent. Specimens were stored in 100% humidity for 1 day at room temperature and then tested. The crowns were pulled from the abutments in a universal testing machine
Discussion.—Significantly higher tensile strength values were obtained for Life and TempBond NE luting agents compared to TempBond and Zone. Abutment surface condition did not influence this difference. Modifying the surface of the implant abutment may not be necessary when Life or Zone is used as a provisional luting agent. TempBond NE has improved retention when the surface is subjected to airborne-particle abrasion. TempBond has improved retention with surfaces modified by airborne-particle abrasion or treatment with a diamond rotary cutting instrument.
Clinical Significance.—Interest in immediate loading of implants increases and with the increased use of this approach, the need to adequately secure provisional restorations also increases. Explored here is which combination of provisional luting agent and implant surface preparation affords the greatest retentive strength.
Kim Y, Yamashita J, Shotwell JL, et al: The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 95:450-455, 2006 Reprints available from J Yamashita, Dept of Biologic and Materials Sciences, Div of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Univ of Michigan, 1011 N University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1078; fax: 734747-2110; e-mail: [email protected]
Volume 52
Issue 2
2007
113