Purpose: To evaluate the effect of cementation protocols on the bonding interface stability and pull-out forces of temporary implant-supported crowns bonded on a titanium base abutment (TiB) or on a temporary titanium abutment (TiA).
Materials and methods: A total of 60 implants were restored with PMMA-based CAD/CAM crowns. Five groups (n = 12) were created: Group 1 = TiB/SRc: crown conditioned with MMA-based liquid (SR Connect, Ivoclar Vivadent); Group 2 = TiB/50Al-MB: crown airborne particle-abraded with 50-μm Al2O3 and silanized (Monobond Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent); Group 3 = TiB/30SiOAl-SRc: crown airborne particle-abraded with 30-μm silica-coated Al2O3 (CoJet, 3M ESPE) and conditioned with MMA-based liquid (SR Connect); Group 4 = TiB/30SiOAl-MB: crown airborne particle-abraded with 30- μm silica-coated Al2O3 (CoJet) and silanized (Monobond Plus); and Group 5 = TiA/TA-PMMA: crown manually enlarged, activated, and rebased with PMMA resin (Telio Lab, Ivoclar Vivadent). Specimens in the TiB groups were cemented using a resin cement (Multilink Hybrid Abutment, Ivoclar Vivadent). After aging (120,000 cycles, 49 N, 1.67 Hz, 5°C to 55°C, 120 seconds), bonding interface failure was analyzed (50x). Pull-out forces (N) (0.5 mm/minute) and modes of failure were registered. Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to analyze the data (α = .05).
Results: Bonding failure after aging varied from 0% (Group 5) to 100% (Groups 1, 2, and 4) (P < .001). Mean pull-out force ranged between 53.1 N (Group 1) and 1,146.5 N (Group 5). The pull-off forces were significantly greater for Group 5 (P < .05), followed by Group 3 (P < .05), whereas the differences among the remaining groups were not significant (P > .05).
Conclusion: The cementation protocol had an effect on the bonding interface stability and pull-out forces of PMMA-based crowns bonded on a titanium base. Airborne particle abrasion of the crown internal surface and conditioning it with an MMA-based liquid may be recommended to improve retention of titanium base temporary restorations. Yet, for optimal outcomes, conventional temporary abutments might be preferred.