COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL FUNCTIONALIZATION AND CEMENTATION UNION TECHNIQUES FOR THE FRICTIONAL IMPLANT-ABUTMENT CONNECTION: ANALYSIS OF MARGINAL ADAPTATION AND TENSILE STRENGTH

Main Article Content

FABÍOLA NASCIMENTO RAMOS
JAMILLE FAVARÃO
TAIMARA CARLA BERTUZZI RIBEIRO
MARCIO JOSÉ MENDONÇA
ADRIANE YAEKO TOGASHI

Abstract

The connection between the implant and the prosthesis (abutment) can present technical complications, such as gaps of the implant-abutment (IA) connections and lack of abutment retention. The objective of this study was to analyze the IA frictional connection as well as the bond strength of this connection when activated with and without cementation. An in vitro laboratory experiment consisted of two groups of IA mounts were evaluated through images obtained with a stereomicroscope. Nine implants were divided into two groups: Group I (GI), which received conventionally activated attachment ball prosthesis and Group II (GII), in which dual resin cement was added prior to the activation of the abutment. For the analysis of gaps and tensile strength test, Shapiro-Wilk test and F test were used, followed by t test. There was a difference between the groups regarding the gaps. Even though Group II had a dimensional increase of the gaps, it also showed higher bond strength than Group I. The cementation seems to have affected the increase of the bond strength in the implant-abutment connection, even with the increase of the gaps.

Keywords:
Dental implants, dental implant-abutment design, resin cements.

Article Details

How to Cite
RAMOS, F. N., FAVARÃO, J., RIBEIRO, T. C. B., MENDONÇA, M. J., & TOGASHI, A. Y. (2020). COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL FUNCTIONALIZATION AND CEMENTATION UNION TECHNIQUES FOR THE FRICTIONAL IMPLANT-ABUTMENT CONNECTION: ANALYSIS OF MARGINAL ADAPTATION AND TENSILE STRENGTH. Asian Journal of Research in Biology, 3(1), 22-26. Retrieved from https://ikpresse.com/index.php/AJRiB/article/view/5553
Section
Original Research Article

References

Bozkaya D, Müftü S. Efficiency considerations for the purely tapered interface fit (tif) abutment used in dental implants. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. 2004;126:393-401.

Rack A, Rack T, Stiller M, Riesemeier H, Zablere S, Nelson K. In vitro Synchrotron-based radiography of micro-gap formation at the implant–abutment interface of two-piece Dental Implants. Journal of Synchrotron Radiation. 2010;17:289–94.

Güncü MB, Çakan U, Canay S. Comparison of 3 luting agents on retention of implant-supported crowns on 2 different abutments. Implant Dentistry. 2011;20(5):349-53.

Semper-Hogg W, Kraft S, Stiller S, Merhof J, Nelson K. Analytical and experimental position stability of the abutment in different dental implant systems with a conical implant–abutment connection. Clinical Oral Investigation. 2013;17(3):1017-23.

Gil FJ, Herrero-Climent M, Lázaro P, Rios JV. Implant-abutment connections: influence of the design on the microgap and their fatigue and fracture behavior of dental implants. Journal of Materials Science: Materials in Medicine. 2014;25(7):1825-30.

Mangano C, Mangano F, Piatelli A, Iezzi G, Mangano A, La Colla L. Prospective clinical evaluation of 307 single-tooth morse taper–connection implants: a multicenter study. International Journal Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 2010;2(25):394-400.

Alves DCD, Carvalho PSP, Martinez EF. In vitro microbiological analysis of bacterial seal at the implant-abutment interface using two morse taper implant models. Brazilian Dental Journal. 2014;25(1):48-53.

Macedo JP, Pereira J, Brendan RV, Henriques B, Benfatti CAM, Magini RS, Lopez-Lopez J, Souza JCM. Morse taper dental implants and platform switching: the new paradigm in oral implantology. European Journal of Dentistry. 2016;10(1):148–54.

Urdaneta RA, Marincola M. The integrated abutment crown™, a screwless and cementless restoration for single-tooth implants: a report on a new technique. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2007;16(4):311-18.

Zielak JC, Rorbacker M, Gomes R, Yamashita C, Gonzaga CC, Giovanni CC. In vitro evaluation of the removal force of abutments in frictional dental implants. Journal of Implantology. 2011;38(5):519-23.

Aguirrebeitia J, Abasolo M, Valejjo J, Ansola R. Dental implants with conical implant-abutment interface: influence of the conical angle difference on the mechanical behaviour of the implant. International Journal of Maxillofacial Implants. 2013;28(2):e73-e82.

Fonseca RG, Santos JG, Adabo GL. Influence of Activation Modes on Diametral Ttensile Strength of Dual-Curing Resin Cements. Brazilian Oral Research. 2005;19(4):267-70.

de Souza G, Braga RR, Cesar PF, Lopes GC. Correlation between clinical performance and degree of conversion of resin cements: a literature review. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2015;23(4):358-68.

Chapman RJ, Grippo W. The locking taper attachment for implant abutments: use and reliability. Implant Dentistry. 1996;5(4):257-61.

Santos AMT. Biomechanical study of prosthetic interfaces: A literature review. Dental Press Implantology. 2013;7(4):90- 7.

Peutzfeldt A, Sahafi A, Flury S. Bonding of restorative materials to dentin with various luting agents. Operative Dentistry. 2011;36(3):266-73.

Falcão Filho HB., Ribeiro RF, De Souza RF, Macedo AP, Almeida RP. Tensile strength of resin cements used with base metals in a simulating passive cementation technique for implant-supported prostheses. Brazilian Dental Journal. 2016;27(6):739-43.

Poggio C, Pigozzo M, Ceci M, Scribante A, Beltrami R, Chiesa M. Influence of different luting protocols on shear bond strength of computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing resin nanoceramic material to dentin. Dental Research Journal. 2016;13(2): 91-7.

Annibali S, Bignozzil I, Cristalli MP, Graziani F, La Monaca G, Polimeni A. Peri-implant marginal bone level: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing platform switching versus conventionally restored implants. Journal Clinical Periodontology. 2012;39:1097–1113.

Jokstad A. Oral implants - The future. Australian Dental Journal. 2008;53(1S):S89-S93.