PURPOSE: To evaluate Ti-Base abutment height and cement type on the retentiveness of zirconia-based restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four millimeter (tall) and 2.5-mm-height (short) abutments along with temporary (provisional), glass ionomer (Meron), self-adhesive (U200), and conventional resin cement (Ultimate) were evaluated using pull-out testing (n = 10 crowns/group). RESULTS: Tall and short abutments demonstrated similar retention for all within cement comparisons, except U200 (P = 0.032). Resin cements exhibited superior retentiveness than others (P < 0.01). Although no significant difference was evidenced between resin cements for short abutments, Ultimate evidenced higher retention than U200 for tall abutments (P = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Although Ti-Base abutment height has not influenced zirconia superstructures' retentiveness, resin-based cements significantly evidenced higher retention than glass ionomer and temporary cements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silva et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More from Implant Dentistry