LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 28 , Issue 1
January/February 2015

Pages 22-29


Retrievability of Implant-Supported Crowns When Using Three Different Cements: A Controlled Clinical Trial

Andreas Worni, DDS, MAS/Hadi Gholami, DDS, MAS/Laurent Marchand/Joannis Katsoulis, PhD, MAS/ Regina Mericske-Stern, DDS, PhD/Norbert Enkling, PhD, MAS


PMID: 25588168
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4119

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the removal of implant-supported crowns retained by three different cements using an air-accelerated crown remover and to evaluate the patients’ response to the procedure. Materials and Methods: This controlled clinical trial was conducted with 21 patients (10 women, 11 men; mean age: 51 ± 10.2 years) who had received a total of 74 implants (all placed in the posterior zone of the mandible). Four months after implant surgery, the crowns were cemented on standard titanium abutments of different heights. Three different cements (two temporary: Harvard TEMP and Improv; and one definitive: Durelon) were used and randomly assigned to the patients. Eight months later, one blinded investigator removed all crowns. The number of activations of the instrument (CORONAflex, KaVo) required for crown removal was recorded. The patients completed a questionnaire retrospectively to determine the impact of the procedure and to gauge their subjective perception. A linear regression model and descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. Results: All crowns could be retrieved without any technical complications or damage. Both abutment height (P = .019) and cement type (P = .004) had a significant effect on the number of activations, but the type of cement was more important. An increased total number of activations had no or only a weak correlation to the patients’ perception of concussion, noise, pain, and unwillingness to use the device. Conclusions: Cemented implant crowns can be removed, and the application of an air-accelerated device is a practicable method. A type of cement with appropriate retention force has to be selected. The impact on the patients’ subjective perception should be taken into account.


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2019 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

IJP Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help