Can Dental Cement Composition Affect Dental Implant Success?

Abstract

Cement-retained restorations on dental implants are a well-established method to replace missing teeth. However, undetected residual cement left during crown cementation procedures encourages microorganism growth, and it has been identified as a risk factor for peri-implant disease. Currently, there is no official guidance for dental cement selection, and the increasing variety of available compositions intensifies the complexity of the clinicians’ decision process. The present study aimed to evaluate the in vitro host and bacterial cellular response to four different commercial dental cements as well as their effects on cement surface morphology. Disk specimens (n = 3) of bioceramic, zinc phosphate, resin-modified glass ionomer, and resin cements were exposed to host (murine pre-osteoblasts, human gingival fibroblasts, and undifferentiated human macrophages) and oral bacterial (Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus salivarius, Streptococcus sanguinis, and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans) cells. Results indicated that oral bacteria degraded the cement surface, but bacterial viability was not significantly affected by the presence of dental cement. Conversely, the biocompatibility and morphology of host cells were severely impacted by the cement composition. Only the bioceramic cement achieved >70% viability for all cell lines investigated. Within the limitations of this study, the results indicated the importance of considering the biological interactions of a dental cement composition during selection as it played a significant role in the host cellular response and the degree of surface degradation due to bacterial attack.

In vitro comparison of the Viability and Proliferation of Human Gingival Fibroblasts and Osteoblast-like MG-63 Cells on Three Different Temporary Cements Used in Dental Implants

“…Both cements were cytotoxic to the HGF cell line (cell viability <70%) after half an hour; however, the cell viability was >70% after 24 hours in contrast to the present study. In a study by Gallegos et al, 40 similar to the present study, R (RelyX Unicem 2 Clicker) cement was highly toxic to the MC3T3E1 and HGF cell lines after 3 and 7 days.…”

Designing Calcium Silicate Cements with On-Demand Properties for Precision Endodontics

“…Furthermore, it is also important to highlight that cement properties can be affected by the host and conditions of the root canal microenvironment. For instance, oral bacteria can degrade the cement surface (Gallegos et al 2019), while low dentine moisture can decrease cement adhesion (Ozlek et al 2020). Hence, future studies are needed to characterize the effects of host/material interactions and cement components on properties and demonstrate that GAs' cements can induce differentiation and mineralization in vivo.…”

Clinical management of dental cements

“…Various studies have shown that excess cement in the periimplant tissues can be a cause of the development of periimplantitis, which is why it is recommended that the margin of the restoration be at a gingival level, to facilitate hygiene in the area, as well as perform control appointments after the restoration is placed to observe that the tissues are healthy [33] . It has also been found that the composition of the dental cement can affect the success of the implant since they can affect some cell lines that act in osseointegration, finding that only bioceramic cements achieved a viability greater than 70% for all the cell lines studied [34] , as well as another study found that resin cements, resin-modified glass ionomer cements and zinc oxide-eugenol cements show moderate to severe toxicity against gingival fibroblasts and preosteoblasts, which shows the importance of the choice of cementing material for implant survival [35] . Post-cementation residues are related to biological pathologies related to the implant.…”