Comparative Evaluation of bond strength of Experimental Shock-Absorbing Dental Cement for implant supported restorations | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 10, Volume 69, Issue 2 - Serial Number 4, April 2023, Page 1275-1283 PDF (903.26 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2023.184286.2391 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Reem Almawla 1; Ehab A. Farghaly 2; Nasser Hussein 3; Lomaya Ghanem  4
| ||||
| 1Clinical Instructor, Oral Rehabilitation Department Faculty of Dentistry, Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon | ||||
| 2Associate Professor, Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Nahada University, Egypt | ||||
| 3Associate Professor, Fixed Prosthodontics, Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental medicine, Modern University for Technology and Information (MTI), Cairo, Egypt | ||||
| 4Associate Professor, Fixed Prosthodontics, Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Misr International University (MIU), Cairo, Egypt | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Aim. compare bond strength of experimental shock-absorbing cement with conventional cements to cement implant-supported restorations. Materials and methods.A total of 42 samples divided into 2 groups; Gp (A): one-piece Titanium implant analogues (n=21) of 0.5mm finish line, 5.5 mm height and 60 taper were centrally and vertically mounted in transparent acrylic resin blocks. each analog received Co Cr coping including a 4mm Ø occlusal loop occlusally. Gp(B); Titanium and Co-Cr plates (n=21 each) 8x8x3mm and 6x6x3mm respectively were constructed. Subgroups 1,2,3 according to type of cement used; A1 and B1 glass ionomer, A2 and B2 resin cement, A3 and B3 Medical grade silicone adhesive.. Samples were thermocycled 1000 cycles, collected, dried and tested. Tensile and shear bond strength were carried out using universal testing machine, at 0.5 mm/min speed. Debonding forces were recorded and statistically analysed. Failure modes were inspected. Results: mean ± SD recorded in Tension were highest for Resin cement SubGp A2 (79.18±18.5 N), then medical grade Silicone SubGp A3 at (71.367±14.896 N), lowest was with SubGp A1 GI cement (41.165±9.73 N). Mean ± SD in Shear were highest for Resin cement SubGp B2 (3.067±0.895 MPa), then medical grade Silicone SubGp B3 (1.844±0.308 MPa), lowest was with SubGp B1 GI (1.073±0.631 MPa). T-student test revealed significant difference between tested groups (P=0.001). Conclusion: Experimental medical grade silicone cement showed better mean tensile and shear bond strengths than Glass ionomer cement and lower than that of resin cement., therefore it could present a reliable option for cementing implant supported prosthesis. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Shock-Absorbing; cement; silicone; Tensile; Shear | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 102 PDF Download: 53 |
||||
