Michalakis K X, Pissiotis A L, Hirayama H
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Aristotles University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000 Jul-Aug;15(4):545-9.
The major disadvantage of cement-retained implant-supported fixed partial dentures (FPDs) is difficulty in retrievability. The retentive strengths of the provisional luting agents usually employed in these cases are therefore an important consideration. This study evaluated the cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of FPDs supported by 2 implants or 4 implants. Nogenol luting agent exhibited the lowest retentive values in both types of FPD. ImProv proved to be the most retentive cement of all tested. Temp Bond NE and Temp Bond presented significantly different values (P < .05) for the 2-implant FPD, but not for the 4-implant model. On the basis of the study results, it may be concluded that Nogenol appears to be more appropriate for cementation of both 2- and 4-implant-supported FPDs when removal of the provisionally cemented superstructure is anticipated.
骨水泥固位的种植体支持固定局部义齿(FPD)的主要缺点是难以取出。因此,这些情况下通常使用的临时粘结剂的固位强度是一个重要的考虑因素。本研究评估了用于两颗种植体或四颗种植体支持的FPD粘结的4种临时粘结剂的骨水泥破坏载荷。在两种类型的FPD中,Nogenol粘结剂的固位值最低。在所有测试的粘结剂中,ImProv被证明是固位力最强的。对于两颗种植体支持的FPD,Temp Bond NE和Temp Bond的值有显著差异(P < .05),但对于四颗种植体支持的FPD则没有。根据研究结果,可以得出结论,当预期要拆除临时粘结的上部结构时,Nogenol似乎更适合用于两颗种植体和四颗种植体支持的FPD的粘结。