These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparing the marginal leakage and retention of implant-supported restorations cemented by four different dental cements.
    Author: Saleh M, Taşar-Faruk S.
    Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res; 2019 Dec; 21(6):1181-1188. PubMed ID: 31692215.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Despite the wide use of implants in dentistry, there is insufficient information about the ideal cement for retention. PURPOSE: To determine the cement bond strength and marginal leakage of crown and partial denture cemented to implant abutments by four different types of cement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four direct abutments were divided into eight groups (n = 7). Fifty-six crown and bridge restorations were cemented using zinc phosphate (ZM), temporary cement (TM), resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (GM), and self-adhesive resin cement (RM). After cementation, thermal cycling and incubation in basic fuchsin dye was applied. The maximum load to failure, marginal leakage, and fracture modes were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean of retention strength for the bridges (874 N) was higher than the crown samples (705 N) (P = .005). The mean of retention strength for each cement group was ZM = 1298, RM = 1027, GM = 646, and TM = 187 N (P ≤ .0001). Marginal leakage was recorded in majority of the samples; the highest incidence was detected for ZM samples. The cement fracture was mostly adhesive in nature. CONCLUSION: Self-adhesive resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cement had better mechanical properties to retain implant supported restorations.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]