Effect of different surface treatments on the retention force of additively manufactured interim implant-supported crowns

Thaleia Filokyprou; Matthew J Kesterke; Xiaohua Liu; Seok-Hwan Cho; Marta Revilla-León

doi:10.1111/jopr.13783

Effect of different surface treatments on the retention force of additively manufactured interim implant-supported crowns

J Prosthodont. 2023 Oct 12. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13783. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Thaleia Filokyprou¹, Matthew J Kesterke², Xiaohua Liu³, Seok-Hwan Cho⁴, Marta Revilla-León^{1

5

6}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Prosthodontics, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
² Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Texas A&M University, Dallas, Texas, USA.
³ Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Texas A&M University, Dallas, Texas, USA.
⁴ Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry and Dental Clinics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
⁵ Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
⁶ Kois Center, Seattle, Washington, USA.

PMID: 37823323
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13783

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the effect of different pre-cementation surface treatments and bonding protocols on the retention force of additively manufactured (AM) implant-supported interim crowns.

Material and methods: A total of 50 AM interim crowns (Temporary CB resin) were cemented on implant abutments. Five groups (n = 10) were established based on the different surface pre-treatments performed in the intaglio surface of the specimens: no surface pre-treatment (Group C or control), air-abraded with 50-μm aluminium oxide particles (Group AP)_, air-abraded with 50-μm aluminium oxide particles followed by the application of silane (Group AMP), silane (Group MP), and air-abraded with 30 μm silica-coated aluminum oxide particles followed by the application of silane (Group CMP). Each specimen was cemented into an implant abutment using a composite resin cement (Rely X Unicem2). Afterward, the specimens underwent retention testing with a Universal Instron machine. Pull-off forces (N) and modes of failure were registered. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni corrections for multiple tests (α = 0.05).

Results: The median retention force values were 233.27 ±79.28 N for Group Control, 398.59 ±68.59 N for Group MP, 303.21 ±116.80 N for Group AMP, 349.31 ±167.73 N for Group CMP, and 219.85 ± 55.88 N for Group AP. The pull-off forces were significantly greater for Group MP, while the differences between the remaining groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Group AP showed the lowest retention force values among all the groups. Failure modes after the pull-off testing were predominantly adhesive and substrate failure of the AM interim material.

Conclusions: The surface treatment of the intaglio AM crown tested significantly influenced the retention force values measured. Pre-treatment with an MDP-containing silane improved the retentive force values computed, whereas pre-treatment with 50-μm Al₂ O₃ air-particle abrasion alone is not recommended prior to cementation on a titanium-based implant abutment.

Keywords: 3D printing; bonding; retention force; temporary crowns; titanium base abutments.

Grants and funding

Texas A and M University