Retention Strength after Compressive Cyclic Loading of Five Luting Agents Used in Implant-Supported Prostheses

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the retention strength of five cement types commonly used in implant-retained fixed partial dentures, before and after compressive cyclic loading. In five solid abutments screwed to 5 implant analogs, 50 metal Cr-Ni alloy copings were cemented with five luting agents: resin-modified glass ionomer (RmGI), resin composite (RC), glass ionomer (GI), resin urethane-based (RUB), and compomer cement (CC). Two tensile tests were conducted with a universal testing machine, one after the first luting of the copings and the other after 100,000 cycles of 100 N loading at 0.72 Hz. The one way ANOVA test was applied for the statistical analysis using the post hoc Tukey test when required. Before and after applying the compressive load, RmGI and RC cement types showed the greatest retention strength. After compressive loading, RUB cement showed the highest percentage loss of retention (64.45%). GI cement recorded the lowest retention strength (50.35 N) and the resin composite cement recorded the highest (352.02 N). The type of cement influences the retention loss. The clinician should give preference to lower retention strength cement (RUB, CC, and GI) if he envisages any complications and a high retention strength one (RmGI, RC) for a specific clinical situation

Complications of Fixed Full-Arch Implant-Supported Metal-Ceramic Prostheses

We aimed to assess the biological and mechanical-technical complications and survival rate of implants of full-arch metal-ceramic prostheses, during five years of follow-up. 558 implants (of three different brands) retaining 80 full-arch metal-ceramic prostheses were placed in 65 patients, all of whom were examined annually for biological and mechanical-technical complications during the five years of follow-up. Descriptive statistics and univariate logistic regression were calculated. The cumulative survival rate of the implants was 99.8%, and 98.8% prosthesis-based. Mucositis was the most frequent of the biological complications and peri-implantitis was recorded as 13.8% at restoration-level, 16.9% at patient level and 2.0% at implant level. An implant length greater than 10 mm was shown to be a protective factor against biological complications. The mechanical-technical complications were associated with implant diameter, abutment/implant connection and retention system. Loss of screw access filling was the most frequent prosthetic complication, followed by the fracture of the porcelain. Full-arch metal-ceramic prostheses show a high prevalence of implant and prosthesis survival, with few biological and mechanical-technical complications

Mandibular Flexure and Peri-Implant Bone Stress Distribution on an Implant-Supported Fixed Full-Arch Mandibular Prosthesis: 3D Finite Element Analysis

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effect of three mandibular full-arch superstructures on the peri-implant bone stress distribution during mandibular flexure caused by mid-opening (27 mm) and protrusion mandibular movements. Materials and Methods. Three-dimensional finite element models were created simulating six osseointegrated implants in the jawbone. One model simulated a 1-piece framework and the other simulated 2-piece and 3-piece frameworks. Muscle forces with definite direction and magnitude were exerted over areas of attachment to simulate multiple force vectors of masticatory muscles during mandibular protrusion and opening. Results. During the movement of 27.5 mm jaw opening, the 1-piece and 3-piece superstructures showed the lowest values of bone stress around the mesial implants, gradually increasing towards the distal position. During the protrusion movement, bone stress increased compared to opening for any implant situation and for a divided or undivided framework. The 3-piece framework showed the highest values of peri-implant bone stress, regardless of the implant situation. Conclusions. The undivided framework provides the best biomechanical environment during mandibular protrusion and opening. Protrusion movement increases the peri-implant bone stress. The most mesial implants have the lowest biomechanical risk