The effect of fatigue damage on the force required to remove a restoration in a cement-retained implant system

Darian Kaar, Yoshiki Oshida, Carl J. Andres, M. Thomas Barco, Jeffrey Platt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the luting agents and retentive forces before and after mechanical stressing. Materials and Methods: Sample size N was 12 for each group, and 12 Cera-One closed-end gold cylinders were cemented with three types of luting cements (ImProv, UltraTemp, and TempBond). The force required to remove the gold cylinders from the abutments was determined with an MTS testing machine. After cleaning and recementing the cylinders, the samples were placed in the housings of an Alabama-type three-body wear machine and load of 110 N was applied to the gold cylinders at a frequency of 80 cycles/min for 50,000 cycles. Then each cylinder was pulled from its abutment and the force at which the failure occurred was recorded. The procedure was repeated with 300,000 cycles. Results: Statistical analysis arising from two-way ANOVA found that the forces required to remove the abutments were significantly different. The most retentive cement was ImProv. Before cyclic loading, on average, ImProv produced a retentive value 85% higher than that yielded by TempBond, and 25% higher than that of UltraTemp. The three cements were significantly different at each of the three cycle levels. Conclusions: These results might suggest TempBond luting agent as the material of choice for provisional cementation because it allows easier removal of the prosthesis and maintains enough retention to prevent loosening of the restoration. The clinical implication is that the effect of cyclic load on the strength of the cements is different, an important factor in selection of a cement. ImProv had the highest retentive value before and after the two cycles, and TempBond had the lowest. UltraTemp had the highest percentage of retentive value lost. TempBond had no significant loss under loading even though initially it was the weakest.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)289-294
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Prosthodontics
Volume15
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2006

Fingerprint

Fatigue
Gold
Dental Cements
Cementation
Somatotypes
Sample Size
Prostheses and Implants
Analysis of Variance
ImProv

Keywords

  • ImProv
  • TempBond
  • UltraTemp

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

The effect of fatigue damage on the force required to remove a restoration in a cement-retained implant system. / Kaar, Darian; Oshida, Yoshiki; Andres, Carl J.; Barco, M. Thomas; Platt, Jeffrey.

In: Journal of Prosthodontics, Vol. 15, No. 5, 09.2006, p. 289-294.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kaar, Darian ; Oshida, Yoshiki ; Andres, Carl J. ; Barco, M. Thomas ; Platt, Jeffrey. / The effect of fatigue damage on the force required to remove a restoration in a cement-retained implant system. In: Journal of Prosthodontics. 2006 ; Vol. 15, No. 5. pp. 289-294.
@article{e939999f53a84abf8dc40ace6aef779a,
title = "The effect of fatigue damage on the force required to remove a restoration in a cement-retained implant system",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate the luting agents and retentive forces before and after mechanical stressing. Materials and Methods: Sample size N was 12 for each group, and 12 Cera-One closed-end gold cylinders were cemented with three types of luting cements (ImProv, UltraTemp, and TempBond). The force required to remove the gold cylinders from the abutments was determined with an MTS testing machine. After cleaning and recementing the cylinders, the samples were placed in the housings of an Alabama-type three-body wear machine and load of 110 N was applied to the gold cylinders at a frequency of 80 cycles/min for 50,000 cycles. Then each cylinder was pulled from its abutment and the force at which the failure occurred was recorded. The procedure was repeated with 300,000 cycles. Results: Statistical analysis arising from two-way ANOVA found that the forces required to remove the abutments were significantly different. The most retentive cement was ImProv. Before cyclic loading, on average, ImProv produced a retentive value 85{\%} higher than that yielded by TempBond, and 25{\%} higher than that of UltraTemp. The three cements were significantly different at each of the three cycle levels. Conclusions: These results might suggest TempBond luting agent as the material of choice for provisional cementation because it allows easier removal of the prosthesis and maintains enough retention to prevent loosening of the restoration. The clinical implication is that the effect of cyclic load on the strength of the cements is different, an important factor in selection of a cement. ImProv had the highest retentive value before and after the two cycles, and TempBond had the lowest. UltraTemp had the highest percentage of retentive value lost. TempBond had no significant loss under loading even though initially it was the weakest.",
keywords = "ImProv, TempBond, UltraTemp",
author = "Darian Kaar and Yoshiki Oshida and Andres, {Carl J.} and Barco, {M. Thomas} and Jeffrey Platt",
year = "2006",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00126.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "289--294",
journal = "Journal of Prosthodontics",
issn = "1059-941X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect of fatigue damage on the force required to remove a restoration in a cement-retained implant system

AU - Kaar, Darian

AU - Oshida, Yoshiki

AU - Andres, Carl J.

AU - Barco, M. Thomas

AU - Platt, Jeffrey

PY - 2006/9

Y1 - 2006/9

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the luting agents and retentive forces before and after mechanical stressing. Materials and Methods: Sample size N was 12 for each group, and 12 Cera-One closed-end gold cylinders were cemented with three types of luting cements (ImProv, UltraTemp, and TempBond). The force required to remove the gold cylinders from the abutments was determined with an MTS testing machine. After cleaning and recementing the cylinders, the samples were placed in the housings of an Alabama-type three-body wear machine and load of 110 N was applied to the gold cylinders at a frequency of 80 cycles/min for 50,000 cycles. Then each cylinder was pulled from its abutment and the force at which the failure occurred was recorded. The procedure was repeated with 300,000 cycles. Results: Statistical analysis arising from two-way ANOVA found that the forces required to remove the abutments were significantly different. The most retentive cement was ImProv. Before cyclic loading, on average, ImProv produced a retentive value 85% higher than that yielded by TempBond, and 25% higher than that of UltraTemp. The three cements were significantly different at each of the three cycle levels. Conclusions: These results might suggest TempBond luting agent as the material of choice for provisional cementation because it allows easier removal of the prosthesis and maintains enough retention to prevent loosening of the restoration. The clinical implication is that the effect of cyclic load on the strength of the cements is different, an important factor in selection of a cement. ImProv had the highest retentive value before and after the two cycles, and TempBond had the lowest. UltraTemp had the highest percentage of retentive value lost. TempBond had no significant loss under loading even though initially it was the weakest.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate the luting agents and retentive forces before and after mechanical stressing. Materials and Methods: Sample size N was 12 for each group, and 12 Cera-One closed-end gold cylinders were cemented with three types of luting cements (ImProv, UltraTemp, and TempBond). The force required to remove the gold cylinders from the abutments was determined with an MTS testing machine. After cleaning and recementing the cylinders, the samples were placed in the housings of an Alabama-type three-body wear machine and load of 110 N was applied to the gold cylinders at a frequency of 80 cycles/min for 50,000 cycles. Then each cylinder was pulled from its abutment and the force at which the failure occurred was recorded. The procedure was repeated with 300,000 cycles. Results: Statistical analysis arising from two-way ANOVA found that the forces required to remove the abutments were significantly different. The most retentive cement was ImProv. Before cyclic loading, on average, ImProv produced a retentive value 85% higher than that yielded by TempBond, and 25% higher than that of UltraTemp. The three cements were significantly different at each of the three cycle levels. Conclusions: These results might suggest TempBond luting agent as the material of choice for provisional cementation because it allows easier removal of the prosthesis and maintains enough retention to prevent loosening of the restoration. The clinical implication is that the effect of cyclic load on the strength of the cements is different, an important factor in selection of a cement. ImProv had the highest retentive value before and after the two cycles, and TempBond had the lowest. UltraTemp had the highest percentage of retentive value lost. TempBond had no significant loss under loading even though initially it was the weakest.

KW - ImProv

KW - TempBond

KW - UltraTemp

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33748338551&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33748338551&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00126.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2006.00126.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 16958729

AN - SCOPUS:33748338551

VL - 15

SP - 289

EP - 294

JO - Journal of Prosthodontics

JF - Journal of Prosthodontics

SN - 1059-941X

IS - 5

ER -