Attitude and treatment options in implant-supported prosthetics: A survey among a cohort of German dentists

Glücker, Caroline; Rauch, Angelika; Hahnel, Sebastian

doi:10.4047/jap.2020.12.1.15

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Advantages of cement-retained iSCs are the provision of a more passive fit of the crown, as well as better esthetical and occlusal features [7]. Due to reduced costs and the simplicity of the procedure, 60% of German clinical practitioners prefer cementation on implant abutments [5,8]. In comparison to screw-retained crowns conventional cementation can avoid common technical complications such as screw loosening or mechanical damage of the implant components.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of cement type and abutment height on pull-off force of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate crowns on titanium implant stock abutments: an in vitro study

Müller¹,

Rauch

Reissmann

et al. 2021

BMC Oral Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Pull-off forces of cement-retained zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) in implant-supported single crowns on stock titanium abutments with respect to abutment height and implant cement were evaluated and compared. Methods Pull-off force of ZLS crowns on stock titanium abutments was evaluated concerning dental cement and abutment height. A total sample size of 64 stock abutments with heights of 3 mm (n = 32) and 5 mm (n = 32) was used. The ZLS crowns were cemented with four different types of cement (one temporary, two semi-permanent, and one permanent). After cementation, water storage, and thermocycling each sample was subjected to a pull-off test using a universal testing machine. Results The temporary cement showed the least pull-off force regardless of abutment height (3/5 mm: means 6 N/23 N), followed by the semi-permanent methacrylate-infiltrated zinc oxide cement (28 N/55 N), the semi-permanent methacrylate-based cement (103 N/163 N), and the permanent resin composite cement (238 N/820 N). Results of all types of cement differed statistically significantly from each other (p ≤ .012). The type of implant cement has an impact on the pull-off force of ZLS crowns and titanium abutments. Conclusions Permanent cements present higher retention than semi-permanent ones, and temporary cements present the lowest values. The abutment height had a subordinate impact.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of cement type and abutment height on pull-off force of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate crowns on titanium implant stock abutments: an in vitro study

Müller¹,

Rauch

Reissmann

et al. 2021

BMC Oral Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of new materials in implant-supported prosthetic restorations is important in prosthetic dentistry. 14 Dental implants have high success rates and they provide many years of clinical service. However, biological and technical complications are common in restorations supported by implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New Materials in Dentistry

Kiann¹,

Luliak²

2021

cswhi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of an appropriate implant biomaterial significantly determines the success of implants. The biologic environment where implants are placed does not necessarily accept any material. Therefore, biologic performance can be optimized by selecting implants that reduce negative biologic response while at the same time functioning adequately. Besides, clinicians should be knowledgeable of different biomaterials used for purposes of dental implants. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview on the issue of dental implants. Some of the implants discussed in the paper include titanium and zirconia implants. Furthermore, the paper discusses how physical properties of the materials influence the treatment outcome.

show abstract

“…In the USA alone, 3 million implants were placed, with an increasing trend indicating ∼500 000/annum. 1 The placement of implants in patients is increasing primarily due to a high success rate, which is around 95%. 2 The failures (∼5%) can be attributed to host factors such as diabetes, quality and quantity of the surrounding bone, history of periodontitis, harmful habits such as smoking and alcoholism, and bacterial infection.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%