IADR Abstract Archives
Effect of Cement Application Techniques on Implant-Supported Single Crowns
Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the effect of different cement application techniques on the cement usage, film thickness, and retention force of implant-supported single crown restorations.
Methods: Thirty-two titanium abutments and lithium disilicate crowns (UP.CAD, Upcera Dental, China) were fabricated and randomly divided into four groups (n=8). After surface treatments, they were adhesively luted using a resin cement (3M™ RelyX™ Universal Resin Cement, 3M ESPE, Germany) in four different methods: by brushing a thin layer of cement on the inner surface of the crown (brush-on application, BA), by placing the resin cement on 3 mm width of the inner crown margin (margin application, MA), by filling the whole inner crown with the cement (gross application, GA), and by pre-seating the cement-filled crown on the copy abutment before cementation (chair-side copy abutment, CCA). The mass of cement used was weighed and calculated. Cement film thicknesses were measured on digital files acquired by microcomputed tomography (Micro-CT). The crown retention forces were tested via the tensile test using a universal testing machine, after which failure modes were examined. One-way ANOVA with the post hoc Tukey HSD test was performed at α = 0.05.
Results: The CCA group (20.162 ± 2.385 mg) had a significantly lower cement usage than MA (26.149 ± 0.875 mg), BA (25.248 ± 0.644 mg), and GA (25.198 ± 1.226 mg) (p < 0.05). Specimens cemented via brush-on application (187.06 ± 23.77 µm) presented significantly higher cement film thicknesses than those using other application techniques (155.20 ± 13.44 µm for MA, 152.39 ± 25.32 µm for GA, and 135.73 ± 27.42 µm for CCA) (p<0.05). Under the tensile test, the four groups had comparable retention forces (p = 0.897).
Conclusions: Different cement application techniques presented diverse features in cementing implant-supported single crowns. Although all methods can achieve adequate retention, brush-on cement application results in higher film thickness, while pre-seating the cement on the chair-side copy abutment can reduce cement usage and potential cement residue.
Methods: Thirty-two titanium abutments and lithium disilicate crowns (UP.CAD, Upcera Dental, China) were fabricated and randomly divided into four groups (n=8). After surface treatments, they were adhesively luted using a resin cement (3M™ RelyX™ Universal Resin Cement, 3M ESPE, Germany) in four different methods: by brushing a thin layer of cement on the inner surface of the crown (brush-on application, BA), by placing the resin cement on 3 mm width of the inner crown margin (margin application, MA), by filling the whole inner crown with the cement (gross application, GA), and by pre-seating the cement-filled crown on the copy abutment before cementation (chair-side copy abutment, CCA). The mass of cement used was weighed and calculated. Cement film thicknesses were measured on digital files acquired by microcomputed tomography (Micro-CT). The crown retention forces were tested via the tensile test using a universal testing machine, after which failure modes were examined. One-way ANOVA with the post hoc Tukey HSD test was performed at α = 0.05.
Results: The CCA group (20.162 ± 2.385 mg) had a significantly lower cement usage than MA (26.149 ± 0.875 mg), BA (25.248 ± 0.644 mg), and GA (25.198 ± 1.226 mg) (p < 0.05). Specimens cemented via brush-on application (187.06 ± 23.77 µm) presented significantly higher cement film thicknesses than those using other application techniques (155.20 ± 13.44 µm for MA, 152.39 ± 25.32 µm for GA, and 135.73 ± 27.42 µm for CCA) (p<0.05). Under the tensile test, the four groups had comparable retention forces (p = 0.897).
Conclusions: Different cement application techniques presented diverse features in cementing implant-supported single crowns. Although all methods can achieve adequate retention, brush-on cement application results in higher film thickness, while pre-seating the cement on the chair-side copy abutment can reduce cement usage and potential cement residue.