RESUMEN
PURPOSE@#. The aim of this study was to investigate the shear bond strength of luting cements used with implant retained restorations on to titanium specimens after different surface treatments. @*MATERIALS AND METHODS@#. One hundred twenty disc shaped specimens were used. They were divided into three groups considering the surface treatments (no treatment, sandblasting, and oxygen plasma treatment). Water contact angle of specimens were determined. The specimens were further divided into four subgroups (n=10) according to applied cement types: polycarboxylate cement (Adhesor Carbofine-AC), temporary zinc oxide free cement (Temporary Cement- ZOC), non eugenol provisional cement for implant retained prosthesis (Premier Implant Cement-PI), and non eugenol acrylic-urethane polymer based provisional cement for implant luting (Cem Implant Cement-CI). Shear bond strength values were evaluated. Two-way ANOVA test and Regression analysis were used to statistical analyze the results. @*RESULTS@#. Overall shear bond strength values of luting cements defined in sandblasting groups were considerably higher than other surfaces (P CI > PI > ZOC according to shear bond strength values for all surface treatment groups (P.05). @*CONCLUSION@#. The retentive strength findings of all luting cements were higher in sandblasting and oxygen plasma groups than in control groups. Oxygen plasma treatment can improve the adhesion ability of titanium surfaces without any mechanical damage to titanium structure.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Zirconia materials have been used for implant-retained restorations, but the stress distribution of zirconia is not entirely clear. The aim of this study is to evaluate the stress distribution and risky areas caused by the different design of zirconia restorations on the atrophic bone of the posterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An edentulous D4-type bone model was prepared from radiography of an atrophic posterior maxilla. Monolithic zirconia and zirconia-fused porcelain implant-retained restorations were designed as splinted or non-splinted. 300-N occlusal forces were applied obliquely. Stress analyses were performed using a 3D FEA program. RESULTS: According to stress analysis, the bone between the 1) molar implant and the 2) premolar in the non-splinted monolithic zirconia restoration model was stated as the riskiest area. Similarly, the maximum von Mises stress value was detected on the bone of the non-splinted monolithic zirconia models. CONCLUSION: Splinting of implant-retained restorations can be more critical for monolithic zirconia than zirconia fused to porcelain for the longevity of the bone.