Evaluation of Retention and Retrievability through the Comparison of Mechanical Strength of Implant Cements
Seungbaek Ryu
Purpose: This experiment was conducted to evaluate the long-term retention and retrievability of the temporary cement for implants that is currently being used in clinical pra...
Evaluation of Retention and Retrievability through the Comparison of Mechanical Strength of Implant Cements
Seungbaek Ryu
Purpose: This experiment was conducted to evaluate the long-term retention and retrievability of the temporary cement for implants that is currently being used in clinical practice by measuring the tensile bond strength and the compressive strength.
Materials and Methods: Temp-bondTM (Kerr, Washington, USA), Elite Cement 100™ (GC, Tokyo, Japan), Fuji TEMP LT™ (GC, Tokyo, Japan), EsTemp Implant™ (Spident, Incheon, South Korea), Premier?? Implant Cement™ (Premier??, Pennsylvania, USA), Cem-Implant™ (B.J.M Lab, Or-Yehuda, Israel), and InterCem™ (SCI-PHARM, California, USA) were used.
A total of 35 casting specimens were utilized using a pattern resin (GC Co., Japan). The specimen was placed on a universal-type testing machine (SHIMADZU, Japan) to which a tensile strength with 1 mm/minute a cross-head speed..
Five each of the cylindrical specimens with a diameter of 4 mm and a length of 6 mm were produced using a stainless steel mold. The produced specimens were placed on the universal-type testing machine (SHIMADZU, Japan) where a compressive force with a speed of 1 mm/minute was applied to them was recorded.
Results: (1) With regard to the compressive force, Intercem showed the highest value, followed by Premier Implant Cement, EsTemp implant, GC Fuji Temp LT, and Cem-implant, in that order. Estemp implant and Intercem showed statistically significant differences with the other cements. (2) For the tensile bond strength, InterCem showed higher values than ZPC, followed by Premier Implant Cement, Cem-implant, and GC Fuji Temp LT, in that order. EsTemp implant had the lowest values. Tempbond, Cem-Implant, and ZPC showed statistically significant differences with the other cements.
Conclusion: Although the implant resin or the RMGI cement had a weaker compressive force that can withstand the occlusal force than ZPC, it had a higher compressive force than TempBond. Therefore, it is deemed to have the sustainability needed for a re-visit period in clinical practice. With respect to the tensile bond strength that resists the force applied to a certain direction, the implant cements, except for Estemp and InterCem, showed values similar to those of Tempbond. In the case of the implant prosthesis that requires retrievability, according to the required clinical situation, a selection that considers the material characteristics will be needed in the case of EsTemp and InterCem.
Evaluation of Retention and Retrievability through the Comparison of Mechanical Strength of Implant Cements
Seungbaek Ryu
Purpose: This experiment was conducted to evaluate the long-term retention and retrievability of the temporary cement for implants that is currently being used in clinical practice by measuring the tensile bond strength and the compressive strength.
Materials and Methods: Temp-bondTM (Kerr, Washington, USA), Elite Cement 100™ (GC, Tokyo, Japan), Fuji TEMP LT™ (GC, Tokyo, Japan), EsTemp Implant™ (Spident, Incheon, South Korea), Premier?? Implant Cement™ (Premier??, Pennsylvania, USA), Cem-Implant™ (B.J.M Lab, Or-Yehuda, Israel), and InterCem™ (SCI-PHARM, California, USA) were used.
A total of 35 casting specimens were utilized using a pattern resin (GC Co., Japan). The specimen was placed on a universal-type testing machine (SHIMADZU, Japan) to which a tensile strength with 1 mm/minute a cross-head speed..
Five each of the cylindrical specimens with a diameter of 4 mm and a length of 6 mm were produced using a stainless steel mold. The produced specimens were placed on the universal-type testing machine (SHIMADZU, Japan) where a compressive force with a speed of 1 mm/minute was applied to them was recorded.
Results: (1) With regard to the compressive force, Intercem showed the highest value, followed by Premier Implant Cement, EsTemp implant, GC Fuji Temp LT, and Cem-implant, in that order. Estemp implant and Intercem showed statistically significant differences with the other cements. (2) For the tensile bond strength, InterCem showed higher values than ZPC, followed by Premier Implant Cement, Cem-implant, and GC Fuji Temp LT, in that order. EsTemp implant had the lowest values. Tempbond, Cem-Implant, and ZPC showed statistically significant differences with the other cements.
Conclusion: Although the implant resin or the RMGI cement had a weaker compressive force that can withstand the occlusal force than ZPC, it had a higher compressive force than TempBond. Therefore, it is deemed to have the sustainability needed for a re-visit period in clinical practice. With respect to the tensile bond strength that resists the force applied to a certain direction, the implant cements, except for Estemp and InterCem, showed values similar to those of Tempbond. In the case of the implant prosthesis that requires retrievability, according to the required clinical situation, a selection that considers the material characteristics will be needed in the case of EsTemp and InterCem.
주제어
#Implant cements
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.