Statement of problem
Straight preparable abutments provide an alternative to titanium bases (Ti-bases) for single-unit screw-retained implant-supported restorations. However, the debonding force between crowns with a screw access channel cemented to preparable abutments and Ti-bases of different designs and surface treatments is unclear.
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the debonding force of screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns cemented to straight preparable abutments and Ti-bases of different designs and surface treatments.
Material and methods
Forty laboratory implant analogs (Straumann Bone Level) were embedded into epoxy resin blocks that were randomly divided into 4 groups (n=10 each) according to the abutment type used: CEREC group, Variobase group, airborne-particle abraded Variobase group, and airborne-particle abraded straight preparable abutment group. All specimens were restored with lithium disilicate crowns and cemented with resin cement to the corresponding abutments. They were thermocycled (from 5 to 55 °C for 2000 cycles) followed by cyclic loading (120 000 cycles). The tensile forces required to debond the crowns from the corresponding abutments were measured (N) by using a universal testing machine. The Shapiro–Wilk test of normality was used. Comparison between the study groups was done with 1-way ANOVA (α=.05).
Tensile debonding force values were significantly different according to the type of abutment used (P<.05). The highest retentive force value was recorded in the straight preparable abutment group (928.1 ±222.2 N) followed by the airborne-particle abraded Variobase group (852.6 ±164.6 N), and the CEREC group (498.8 ±136.6 N); the lowest value was reported in the Variobase group (158.6 ±85.2 N).
The retention of screw-retained lithium disilicate implant-supported crowns cemented to airborne-particle abraded straight preparable abutments is significantly higher than to non-surface treated Ti-bases and similar to airborne-particle abraded ones. Abrading abutments with 50-mm Al2O3 significantly increased the debonding force of the lithium disilicate crowns.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Clinical evaluation of chairside lithium disilicate CAD/CAM crowns.J Am Dent Assoc. 2010; 141: 10-14
- Effect of screw access channel on the fracture rate of lithium disilicate cement-retained implant-supported posterior crowns.J Prosthet Dent. 2022; 127: 618-625
- Influence of screw access channel on all ceramic cement-retained implant-supported posterior crowns.Int J Sci Res. 2016; 5: 2252-2258
- Effect of airborne-particle abrasion of a titanium base abutment on the stability of the bonded interface and retention forces of crowns after artificial aging.J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 126: 214-221
- Fracture resistance of different implant abutments supporting all-ceramic single crowns after aging.Int J Comput Dent. 2017; 20: 53-64
- Design and production of dental prosthetic restorations: basic research on dental CAD/CAM technology.Int J Comput Dent. 2002; 5: 165-176
- Marginal and internal fit of all-ceramic crowns fabricated with two different CAD/CAM systems.Dent. Mater. J. 2008; 27: 422-426
- Evaluation of the precision of different intraoral scanner-Computer Aided Design (CAD) software combinations in digital dentistry.Med Sci Monit. 2020; 26e918529
- Digital versus analog procedures for the prosthetic restoration of single implants: a randomized controlled trial with 1 year of follow-up.BioMed Research Int. 2018; 18: 1-20
- The combination prosthesis: a digitally designed retrievable cement- and screw-retained implant-supported prosthesis.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 535-539
- Cementation protocol for bonding zirconia crowns to titanium base CAD/CAM abutments.Int J Prosthodont. 2020; 33: 527-535
- The effects of abutment taper, length and cement type on resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained, implant-supported restorations.J Prosthodont. 2003; 12: 111-115
- Effect of abutment height on retention of single cement-retained, wide-and narrow-platform implant-supported restorations.J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2012; 6: 98-101
- Retentive strength of implant-supported CAD-CAM lithium disilicate crowns on zirconia custom abutments using 6 different cements.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 247-252
- Effect of using nano and micro airborne abrasive particles on bond strength of implant abutment to prosthesis.Braz Dent J. 2015; 26: 50-55
- Tensile bond strength of three custom-made Tooth-Colored implant superstructures to titanium inserts.J Dent. 2019; 20: 131-138
- Retentive strength of implant-supported base metal copings over short metal abutments using different luting agents and surface treatments.Implant Dent. 2014; 23: 162-167
- Tensile bond strength of an adhesive resin cement to different alloys having various surface treatments.J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 101: 107-118
- Retention of zirconia copings over smooth and airborne-particle-abraded titanium bases with different resin cements.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 949-954
- Retention of zirconia crowns to Ti-base abutments: effect of luting protocol, abutment treatment and autoclave sterilization.J. Prosthodont Res. 2021; 65: 171-175
- Retentive strength of two-piece CAD/CAM zirconia implant abutments.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014; 16: 920-925
- Retentive force of glass-ceramic soldered customized Zirconia abutment copings with prefabricated titanium bases.Materials. 2020; 13: 3193
- Biaxial flexural strength of un-shaded and shaded monolithic traslucent zirconia.Alex Dent J. 2018; 43: 69-73
- Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations.J Dent. 1999; 27: 89-99
- Encyclopedia of statistical sciences.2nd ed. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken2006: 981-989
Published online: February 20, 2023
Publication stageIn Press Corrected Proof
© 2023 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.