PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: Few studies assessed the effect of coping material (particularly milled metal copings) on the retentive strength of cements and reported contradictory results. Thus, this study aims to assess the marginal leakage and retentive strength of implant-supported milled zirconia and cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) copings cemented with different temporary cements.
UNASSIGNED: In this in vitro study, Zirconia and Co-Cr copings were fabricated on 100 straight titanium abutments. Each group of copings was divided into five subgroups (n = 10) for the use of different cements: permanent zinc-phosphate (ZP) cement, temporary zinc oxide eugenol cement (temp bond [TB]), calcium hydroxide-based temporary cement (Dycal [DC]), polymer-based eugenol-free acrylic-urethane temporary cement (Dentotemp [DT]), and methacrylate-based temporary cement (Implantlink [IL]). The retentive strength and marginal leakage of restorations were assessed. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, Tukey, and Fisher\'s exact tests (α = 0.05).
UNASSIGNED: In the Co-Cr group, the retentive strength values (in Newtons) were as follows: ZP (411.40 ± 5.19) >DC (248.80 ± 5.01) >IL (200.10 ± 5.06) >DT (157.90 ± 5.19) >TB (98.50 ± 6.88). This order was as follows in the zirconia group: ZP (388.70 ± 5.35) >DC (226.60 ± 5.08) >IL (179.00 ± 3.71) >DT (136.00 ± 4.88) >TB (78.60 ± 3.50). All pairwise comparisons were statistically significant (P < 0.001). The difference in marginal leakage was not significant among the groups (P = 0.480).
UNASSIGNED: The type of coping material and cement type significantly affected retentive strength, but not marginal leakage, of implant restorations. Milled Co-Cr copings showed higher retentive strength than zirconia copings, and ZP cement followed by DC yielded the highest retention.
UNASSIGNED: In this in vitro study, Zirconia and Co-Cr copings were fabricated on 100 straight titanium abutments. Each group of copings was divided into five subgroups (n = 10) for the use of different cements: permanent zinc-phosphate (ZP) cement, temporary zinc oxide eugenol cement (temp bond [TB]), calcium hydroxide-based temporary cement (Dycal [DC]), polymer-based eugenol-free acrylic-urethane temporary cement (Dentotemp [DT]), and methacrylate-based temporary cement (Implantlink [IL]). The retentive strength and marginal leakage of restorations were assessed. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, Tukey, and Fisher\'s exact tests (α = 0.05).
UNASSIGNED: In the Co-Cr group, the retentive strength values (in Newtons) were as follows: ZP (411.40 ± 5.19) >DC (248.80 ± 5.01) >IL (200.10 ± 5.06) >DT (157.90 ± 5.19) >TB (98.50 ± 6.88). This order was as follows in the zirconia group: ZP (388.70 ± 5.35) >DC (226.60 ± 5.08) >IL (179.00 ± 3.71) >DT (136.00 ± 4.88) >TB (78.60 ± 3.50). All pairwise comparisons were statistically significant (P < 0.001). The difference in marginal leakage was not significant among the groups (P = 0.480).
UNASSIGNED: The type of coping material and cement type significantly affected retentive strength, but not marginal leakage, of implant restorations. Milled Co-Cr copings showed higher retentive strength than zirconia copings, and ZP cement followed by DC yielded the highest retention.
摘要：
■很少有研究评估了应对材料（特别是碾磨的金属覆盖物）对水泥保持强度的影响，并报告了相互矛盾的结果。因此，这项研究旨在评估用不同临时水泥胶结的植入物支撑的研磨氧化锆和钴铬（Co-Cr）覆盖层的边缘渗漏和保持强度。
■在这项体外研究中，氧化锆和Co-Cr涂层在100个直钛基台上制造。每组顶盖分为五个亚组（n=10），用于使用不同的水泥：永久性磷酸锌（ZP）水泥，临时氧化锌丁香酚水泥(tempbond[TB])，氢氧化钙基临时水泥（Dycal[DC]），基于聚合物的无丁香酚的丙烯酸聚氨酯临时水泥（Dentotemp[DT]），和基于甲基丙烯酸酯的临时水泥(Implantlink[IL])。评估了修复体的保留强度和边缘渗漏。数据采用单因素方差分析，Tukey,和Fisher精确检验(α=0.05)。
■在Co-Cr组中，保持强度值(牛顿)如下:ZP(411.40±5.19)>DC(248.80±5.01)>IL(200.10±5.06)>DT(157.90±5.19)>TB(98.50±6.88)。氧化锆组依次为:ZP(388.70±5.35)>DC(226.60±5.08)>IL(179.00±3.71)>DT(136.00±4.88)>TB(78.60±3.50)。所有配对比较均具有统计学意义（P<0.001）。各组间边缘渗漏差异无统计学意义(P=0.480)。
■覆盖材料的类型和水泥类型显著影响了保持强度，但不是边际泄漏，植入物修复。铣削钴铬镀层显示出比氧化锆镀层更高的保持强度，ZP水泥其次是DC产生最高的保留率。
■在这项体外研究中，氧化锆和Co-Cr涂层在100个直钛基台上制造。每组顶盖分为五个亚组（n=10），用于使用不同的水泥：永久性磷酸锌（ZP）水泥，临时氧化锌丁香酚水泥(tempbond[TB])，氢氧化钙基临时水泥（Dycal[DC]），基于聚合物的无丁香酚的丙烯酸聚氨酯临时水泥（Dentotemp[DT]），和基于甲基丙烯酸酯的临时水泥(Implantlink[IL])。评估了修复体的保留强度和边缘渗漏。数据采用单因素方差分析，Tukey,和Fisher精确检验(α=0.05)。
■在Co-Cr组中，保持强度值(牛顿)如下:ZP(411.40±5.19)>DC(248.80±5.01)>IL(200.10±5.06)>DT(157.90±5.19)>TB(98.50±6.88)。氧化锆组依次为:ZP(388.70±5.35)>DC(226.60±5.08)>IL(179.00±3.71)>DT(136.00±4.88)>TB(78.60±3.50)。所有配对比较均具有统计学意义（P<0.001）。各组间边缘渗漏差异无统计学意义(P=0.480)。
■覆盖材料的类型和水泥类型显著影响了保持强度，但不是边际泄漏，植入物修复。铣削钴铬镀层显示出比氧化锆镀层更高的保持强度，ZP水泥其次是DC产生最高的保留率。
