Geometry of implant abutment surface improving cement effectiveness: An In vitro study
Aradhana Rathod1, Mohammad Jalaluddin2, Shrinivas3, Trupti Jagannath Devadiga4, Shruti Jha5, Khaled M Alzahrani6
1 Department of Prosthodontics, Al-Badar Rural Dental College and Hospital, Gulbarga, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Periodontics and Oral Implantology, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
3 Department of Dentistry, Koppal Institute of Medical Sciences, Koppal, Karnataka, India
4 Department Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, M. A. Rangoonwala College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Pune, Maharashtra, India
5 Department of Pedodontics, Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana, India
6 Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam Bin AbdulAziz University, 11942 Alkharj, Saudi Arabia
Department of Dentistry, Koppal Institute of Medical Sciences, Koppal, Karnataka
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Aim: The aim of the study was to investigate whether the surface geometry or topography of implant abutments affects the retentive strength of prosthesis cemented with zinc phosphate on standard machined, sandblasted, and grooved implant abutments and to compare the results between them. Materials and Methods: Fifteen similarly shaped implant abutments (MDcpk61; MIS Implant Technologies Ltd.,) (height 6.0 mm and 6-degree taper) were divided into three groups (n = 05): Group I – standard machined abutments without grooves, Group II – sandblasted abutments (same as Group I but sandblasted with 50 μ aluminum oxide), and Group III – abutment with prefabricated circumferential grooves. Further in these groups of 15 abutments, 5 abutments each are to be taken to check the retentive force of zinc phosphate cement. Fifteen identical cast copings was prepared to fit all 15 abutments. The castings will be cemented to each group of abutments with an above-mentioned luting agent. After thermal cycling and storage for 6 days in a water bath, a retention test is to be done with a tensile testing machine (Instron) (5 mm/min) and retentive forces will be recorded. Data will be subjected to one-way ANOVA test and Student's t-test. Results: For zinc phosphate cement, F = 30.53 (>3.59 for P = 0.05) shows a statistically significant difference between all the three groups. Conclusion: Circumferential grooves on implant abutments give better retention when compared with standard machined (plain) and sandblasted abutments despite marked difference.
Clinical Significance: Retention of restoration depends on the surface of the abutment as well as the luting agents used. Incorporation of retentive grooves can enhance retention of prosthesis, especially in situation of short abutments.