Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 17, 2026
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Effect of different surface treatments on the retention force of additively manufactured interim implant-supported
Thaleia Filokyprou1, Matthew J Kesterke2, Xiaohua Liu3
1Department of Prosthodontics, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
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 Al2O3 air-particle abrasion alone is not recommended prior to cementation on a titanium-based implant abutment.
