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: Comparison of the Effect of Implant Abutment Surface Modifications on the Retention of Implant-Supported Restorations. Author: Khan MAA, Godil AZ, Wadwan SA, Kheur MG. Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2024 Apr 24; 39(2):278-285. PubMed ID: 38657220. Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the difference in retention between implant-supported restorations with and without surface modification of the implant abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 30 patients with singletooth implants were restored with cement-retained (Multilink N, Ivoclar) restorations using titanium base abutments (Variobase, Straumann) and randomly assigned surface modifications. Group 1 used nonmodified abutments, group 2 used sandblasted abutments, and group 3 used sandblasted abutments followed by an application of metal primer. All patients were recalled for a baseline examination 6 months after crown placement. The pull-out strength and intergroup distribution of mean pull-out strength were assessed. To assess differences between the three groups, intergroup statistical comparison of continuous variables was done using one-way ANOVA with Tukey correction for multiple group comparisons. RESULTS: The results of the intergroup mean pull-out strength distribution revealed that the distribution of mean ± SD pull-out strength in group 1, group 2, and group 3 were 220.79 ± 94.23, 488.64 ± 84.12, and 705.46 ± 112.75 Ncm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Sandblasting followed by the application of metal primer produced the highest retention of porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) crowns to titanium base abutments, followed by sandblasting alone, with the least retention being observed with no surface treatment.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]