Marginal discrepancy and retention post-cementation of unretentive crowns in conometric systems: An in vitro comparative study

Main Article Content

Zainab S Al-Chalabi
Süleyman H Tuna

Abstract

Background: This in vitro study was carried out to determine the marginal discrepancy (MD) and retention force (RF) values in the conometric systems (CSs) having poor retention after cementation using two distinct cements and procedures. Materials and methods: This study used 24 monolithic zirconia crowns that were cemented into 24 conometric caps and 24 conometric abutments attached to implant analogues. The researchers repeated the pull-out test until they achieved the RF values <40N. All samples were classified into two categories (n=12): grooved and ungrooved crowns. Every group was separated into 2 subgroups (n=6) depending on the cement type that was used i.e., either zinc phosphate cement (ZPC) or resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). After cementation, the researchers calculated the MDs with a stereoscopic microscope, and the RFs were calculated with the help of pull-out tests. The researchers statistically analysed the data using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test with a significance level <0.05. Results: They noted that the ungrooved crowns that were cemented using RMGIC (163±17.13µm) and ZPC (173.16±23.13µm) exhibited the highest average MDs. On the other hand, the grooved crowns that were cemented with RMGIC displayed the lowest average MD (38.16±22.85µm). Also, RMGIC showed a higher RF value (355.54±102.23N, 373.48±46.33N) compared to that shown by ZPC (199.79±114.01N, 189.86±21.33N). Conclusions: Both the cement groups in this study showed a higher and acceptable retention. Furthermore, it was seen that the incorporation of grooves in the crowns during the cementation procedure decreased the MD.  Additionally, RMGIC-cemented grooved crowns displayed the best post-cementation MD and RF values.

Downloads

Article Details

Section

Research Articles

How to Cite

1.
Al-Chalabi ZS, Tuna SH. Marginal discrepancy and retention post-cementation of unretentive crowns in conometric systems: An in vitro comparative study. J Bagh Coll Dent [Internet]. 2025 Mar. 15 [cited 2025 Mar. 17];37(1):68-75. Available from: https://jbcd.uobaghdad.edu.iq/index.php/jbcd/article/view/3913

References

Bressan E, Lops D. Conometric retention for complete fixed prosthesis supported by four implants: 2-years prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(5):546-552.

Degidi M, Nardi D, Piattelli A. The Conometric Concept: Coupling Connection for Immediately Loaded Titanium-Reinforced Provisional Fixed Partial Dentures-A Case Series. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2016;36(3):347-354.

Degidi M, Nardi D, Sighinolfi G, Piattelli A. The Conometric Concept: Definitive Fixed Lithium Disilicate Restorations Supported by Conical Abutments. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(7):605-610.

Degidi M, Nardi D, Gianluca S, Piattelli A. The Conometric Concept: A 5-Year Follow-up of Fixed Partial Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Supported by Cone-in-Cone Abutments. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2018;38(3):363-371.

Albiero AM, Benato R, Momic S, Degidi M. Guided-welded approach planning using a computer-aided designed prosthetic shell for immediately loaded complete-arch rehabilitations supported by conometric abutments. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122(6):510-515.

Degidi M, Nardi D, Sighinolfi G, Degidi D. The conometric concept for the definitive rehabilitation of a single posterior implant by using a conical indexed abutment: A technique. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(4):576-579.

Tuna SH, Al-Chalabi ZS, Kozak E. Evaluation of the Effects of Repeated Insertion-Removal Cycles on the Retention of an Indexed Conometric Connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022;37(3):549-555.

Al-Chalabi ZS, Tuna SH. The effect of thermomechanical aging on the retention of a conometric system in a chewing simulator. J Prosthodont. 2023;32(9):838-845.

Siadat H, Mirfazaelian A, Alikhasi M. Scanning electron micro¬scope evaluation of marginal discrepancy of gold and base metal implant-supported prostheses with three fabrication methods. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2008;8(3):148-153.

de Torres EM, Rodrigues RC, de Mattos MdaG, Ribeiro RF. The effect of commercially pure titanium and alternative dental alloys on the marginal fit of one-piece cast implant frame¬works. J Dent. 2007;35(10):800-805.

Ghadeer FK, Alwan LE, Al-Azzawi AKJ. Crystallization firing effect on the marginal discrepancy of the IPS. emax CAD crowns using two different CAD/CAM systems. J Bagh Coll Dent. 2023;35(1):49-57.‏

Yeo IS, Yang JH, Lee JB. In vitro marginal fit of three all-ceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(5):459-464.

Bresciano M, Schierano G, Manzella C, Screti A, Bignardi C, Preti G. Retention of luting agents on implant abutments of different height and taper. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16(5):594-598.

Kim Y, Yamashita J, Shotwell JL, Chong KH, Wang HL. The comparison of provisional luting agents and abutment surface roughness on the retention of provisional implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;95(6):450-455.

Lewinstein I, Block L, Lehr Z, Ormianer Z, Matalon S. An in vitro assessment of circumferential grooves on the retention of cement-retained implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;106(6):367-372.

Qeblawi DM, Muñoz CA, Brewer JD, Monaco EA. The effect of zirconia surface treatment on flexural strength and shear bond strength to a resin cement. J Prosthet Dent. 2010;103(4):210-220.

Akin H, Guney U. Effect of various surface treatments on the retention properties of titanium to implant restorative cement. Lasers Med Sci. 2012;27(6):1183-1187.

Martinez-Rus F, Ferreiroa A, Ozcan M, Pradies G. Marginal discrepancy of monolithic and veneered all-ceramic crowns on titanium and zirconia implant abutments before and after adhesive cementation: a scanning electron microscopy analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(2):480-487.

Rosas J, Mayta-Tovalino F, Guerrero ME, Tinedo-López PL, Delgado C, Ccahuana-Vasquez VZ. Marginal Discrepancy of Cast Copings to Abutments with Three Different Luting Agents. Int J Dent. 2019; 2019:8657582.

Cooper TM, Christensen GJ, Laswell HR, Baxter R. Effect of venting on cast gold full crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1971;26(6):621-626.

Tjan AH, Sarkissian R. Internal escape channel: an alternative to venting complete crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1984;52(1):50-56.

Olivera AB, Saito T. The effect of die spacer on retention and fitting of complete cast crowns. J Prosthodont. 2006;15(4):243-249.

Wilson PR, Goodkind RJ, Delong R, Sakaguchi R. Deformation of crowns during cementation. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;64(5):601-609.

Schwedhelm ER, Lepe X, Aw TC. A crown venting technique for the cementation of implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89(1):89-90.

Boening KW, Wolf BH, Schmidt AE, Kästner K, Walter MH. Clinical fit of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84(4):419-424.

Kokubo Y, Ohkubo C, Tsumita M, Miyashita A, Vult von Steyern P, Fukushima S. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Oral Rehabil. 2005;32(7):526-530.

Karlsson S. The fit of Procera titanium crowns. An in vitro and clinical study. Acta Odontol Scand. 1993;51(3):129-134.

Molin MK, Karlsson SL, Kristiansen MS. Influence of film thickness on joint bend strength of a ceramic/resin composite joint. Dent Mater. 1996;12(4):245-249.

McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971;131(3): 107-111.

Juntavee N, Millstein PL. Effect of surface roughness and cement space on crown retention. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68(3):482-486.

Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Lilly KR. Use of luting agents with an implant system: Part II. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68(6):885-890.

Alofi RS. Comparative Evaluation of Film Thickness and Temperature of Different Luting Cements: An In Vitro Study. World. 2019;10(6): 429.‏

Sutherland JK, Loney RW, Syed S. Marginal discrepancy of all-ceramic crowns cemented on implant abutments. J Prosthodont. 1995;4(3):173-177.

Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Ebrahimi M, Savabi G. Retentiveness of implant-supported metal copings using different luting agents. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2012;9(1):13-18.

Kapoor R, Singh K, Kaur S, Arora A. Retention of Implant Supported Metal Crowns Cemented with Different Luting Agents: A Comparative Invitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(4): ZC61-ZC64.

Naumova EA, Roth F, Geis B, Baulig C, Arnold WH, Piwowarczyk A. Influence of Luting Materials on the Retention of Cemented Implant-Supported Crowns: An In Vitro Study. Materials. 2018; 11(10):1853.

Mansour A, Ercoli C, Graser G, Tallents R, Moss M. Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13(4):343-348.

Sheets JL, Wilcox C, Wilwerding T. Cement selection for cement-retained crown technique with dental implants. J Prosthodont. 2008;17(2):92-96.

Sadig WM, Al Harbi MW. Effects of surface conditioning on the retentiveness of titanium crowns over short implant abutments. Implant Dent. 2007;16(4):387-396.

Ruwiaee RA, Alhuwaizi AF. Effect of artificial aging test on PEEK CAD/CAM fabricated orthodontic fixed lingual retainer. J Baghdad Coll Dent. 2022;34(2):1-6.‏

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.