A digital approach to fabricating an abutment replica to control cement volume in a cement-retained implant prosthesis

Lee, Ju‐Hyoung; Park, In-Sook; Sohn, Dong-Seok

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.008

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the extraoral replica technique, [17][18][19] cement-filled crown is placed on the replica crown (outside the mouth) before it is cemented onto the abutment, the replica is separated from the crown before it hardens, and the crown is cemented onto the abutment. In this way, most of the excess cement in the crown is removed with the help of the replica and the amount of cement overflowing from the crown margins to the abutment after cementation is reduced.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How can excess residual cement be reduced in implant‐supported restorations?: An in vitro study

Gönder

Polat

Kılıçarslan

et al. 2023

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate the effect of different cements and cementation techniques used in implant‐supported restorations and the application of various vent modifications and extraoral replica techniques on the amount of overflowing cement in cemented systems.Materials and MethodsIn this study, three different abutment designs were used as fully closed, occlusal vented, and occlusal + proximal vented. An extraoral replica was produced by milling the CAD/CAM ceramic block. The number of groups with and without replicas was determined as six (n = 10). For the cementation procedures, three different cements were tested: dual‐cure resin, eugenol‐free zinc oxide, and polycarboxylate cements. Cobalt–chromium superstructures to be cemented to the implant analog–abutment complex were produced by direct metal laser sintering method. Twenty‐four hours after the cementation process, residual cement were measered with Micro‐CT. In comparisons between groups, ANOVA test was used for normally distributed variables and Kruskall–Wallis H test was used for non‐normally distributed variables at a significance level of p < 0.05.ResultsThe difference in residual cement volumes between the groups in terms of both cementation techniques (whether or not to use an extraoral replica and different vent desings) and cement types was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). There was significantly less residual cement in all groups that used extraoral replicas than those that did not. As for the cement types, the most residual cement occurred in the resin cement.ConclusionThe use of extraoral replicas and vent designs on the abutment significantly reduces the amount of residual cement. Regardless of the cementation technique, the type of cement used affects the amount of excess cement.Clinical RelevanceTo reduce residual cement, both the type of cement and the cementation technique used must be considered.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How can excess residual cement be reduced in implant‐supported restorations?: An in vitro study

Gönder

Polat

Kılıçarslan

et al. 2023

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The extruded excess cement is cleaned outside the mouth, then, the crown is placed into the intraoral abutment to complete setting. 12 However, abutment replica technique tends to make relatively wide voids, which can lead to increased bacterial penetration. 13 Hence, in the present study, the traditional cementation technique was modified by using a microbrush to apply an extremely thin cement layer on the intaglio surface of the crown to minimize the extruded cement and to prevent creating a wide void.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A novel retentive type of dental implant prosthesis: marginal fitness of the cementless double crown type implant prosthesis evaluated by bacterial penetration and viability

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE. This study aims to compare the marginal fitness of two types of implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis, i.e., cementless fixation (CL.F) system and cement-retained type. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In each group, ten specimens were assessed. Each specimen comprised implant lab analog, titanium abutment fabricated with a 2-degree tapered axial wall, and zirconia crown. The crown of the CL.F system was retained by frictional force between abutment and relined composite resin. In the cement-retained type, zinc oxide eugenol cement was used to set crown and abutment. All specimens were sterilized with ethylene oxide, immersed in Prevotella intermedia culture in a 50 mL tube, and incubated with rotation. After 48 h, the specimens were washed thoroughly before separating the crown and abutment. The bacteria that penetrated into the crownabutment interface were collected by washing with 500 μL of sterile saline. The bacterial cell number was quantified using the agar plate count technique. The BacTiter-Glo Microbial Cell Viability Assay Kit was used to measure bacterial adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-bioluminescence, which reflects the bacterial viability. The t-test was performed, and the significance level was set at 5%. RESULTS. The number of penetrating bacterial cells assessed by colony-forming units was approximately 33% lower in the CL.F system than in the cement-retained type (P<.05). ATP-bioluminescence was approximately 41% lower in the CL.F system than in the cementretained type (P<.05). CONCLUSION. The CL.F system is more resistant to bacterial penetration into the abutment-crown interface than the cement-retained type, thereby indicating a precise marginal fit. [ J Adv

show abstract

“…Therefore, several techniques have been suggested for controlling or minimising submucosal residual cement around implant‐retained restorations. These include the use of polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) tape (Hess, 2014), rubber dams (Seo & Seo, 2017), gingival displacement cord or copy abutment (Bhushan et al., 2017; Canullo et al., 2016; Caudry et al., 2009; Galván et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2016; Liang et al., 2016; Rayyan & Makarem, 2016; Wadhwani & Piñeyro, 2009; Yuzbasioglu, 2014), and others. According to the literature, a rubber dam allows only a minimal amount of excess cement to flow into the submucosal area even when the prosthesis margins are submucosally placed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing effectiveness of rubber dam and gingival displacement cord with copy abutment in reducing residual cement in cement‐retained implant crowns: A crossover RCT

Andrijauskas

Zukauskas

Alkimavičius

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate the amount of residual cement after cementation of implant crown abutments with rubber dam and retraction cord with copy abutments techniques. Material and Methods Thirty single posterior metal‐ceramic implant‐supported restorations were delivered to 20 patients. The crowns were fabricated with occlusal openings obturated with composite, and then luted with resin‐reinforced glass‐ionomer cement on customised standard abutments. The cementation procedure was performed twice in the same specimens using rubber dam (group 1) and retraction cord with copy abutment (group 2). If no cement remnants were seen on periapical radiographs after cleaning, the crown‐abutment unit was dismounted. All quadrants of the specimens were photographed to calculate the percentage proportions of residual cement area. Mann–Whitney and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for statistical analysis. Results In each group, 120 measurements were performed (30 implants, 4 surfaces each). The median percentage ratio with interquartile range (IQR) between the cement remnant area and total specimen area was 1.39% (IQR 0.77%–2.29%) and 0.58% (IQR 0.31%–1.33%) in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Lesser cement remnants were found in group 2 with a statistically significant difference (p < .001). The comparison of the mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual surfaces in each group showed no statistically significant differences between them (group 1, p = .482; group 2, p = .330). Conclusions The retraction cord and copy abutment reduced the excess cement more efficiently than the rubber dam did. Notwithstanding, undetected cement remnants were observed with both methods, and neither should be considered reliable in clinical applications.

show abstract

A digital approach to fabricating an abutment replica to control cement volume in a cement-retained implant prosthesis

Cited by 7 publications

References 19 publications

How can excess residual cement be reduced in implant‐supported restorations?: An in vitro study

How can excess residual cement be reduced in implant‐supported restorations?: An in vitro study

A novel retentive type of dental implant prosthesis: marginal fitness of the cementless double crown type implant prosthesis evaluated by bacterial penetration and viability

Comparing effectiveness of rubber dam and gingival displacement cord with copy abutment in reducing residual cement in cement‐retained implant crowns: A crossover RCT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About