A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Effect of axial wall modification on the retention of cement-retained, implant-supported crowns. | LitMetric

Effect of axial wall modification on the retention of cement-retained, implant-supported crowns.

J Prosthet Dent

Department of Head and Neck Surgery, Section of Oncologic Dentistry and Maxillofacial Prosthodontics, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Published: February 2012

Statement Of Problem: Compromised angulation of implants may result in abutment preparation that is less than ideal. Compromised abutment preparation may affect the retention of implant-retained crowns.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of 5 implant abutment designs on the retention of cement-retained crowns by varying the number and position of the axial walls.

Material And Methods: Five prefabricated abutments were attached to an implant analog and embedded in an acrylic resin block. The first abutment was left intact without modification. Axial walls were partially removed from the remaining abutments to produce abutments with 3 walls, 2 adjacent walls, 2 opposing walls, and 1 wall. Five crowns were made for each group. The screw access channel for the first abutment was completely filled with composite resin and the rest were partially filled. The retentive surface area of each abutment was calculated. Crowns were cemented with zinc phosphate cement. Tensile force was applied to separate the castings from the abutments. Peak load to dislodgment was recorded. A 1-way ANOVA was used to test for a significant difference followed by the Tukey Honestly Significant Difference test (α=.05).

Results: The abutment with 2 opposing axial walls had significantly higher retention than that of all other groups (F=149.9, df =24, P<.001). The abutment with 3 walls exhibited the second highest retention and was significantly greater than abutments with 2 adjacent walls, 1, and 4 walls. Abutments with 2 adjacent walls and 1 wall were not significantly different from each other. The unmodified abutment with 4 walls exhibited the lowest retention despite having a large retentive surface area.

Conclusions: The retention of cemented crowns on implant abutments is influenced by the number and position of axial walls.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60028-6DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

retention cement-retained
8
abutment preparation
8
axial walls
8
abutment
7
walls
5
axial
4
axial wall
4
wall modification
4
retention
4
modification retention
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!