Clinical Factors Influencing Removal of the Cement Excess in Implant‐Supported Restorations

Vindašiūtė, Eglė; Puišys, Algirdas; Maslova, Natalja; Linkevičienė, Laura; Pečiulienė, Vytautė; Linkevičius, Tomas

doi:10.1111/cid.12170

Cited by 54 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cement retained implant restoration has issues including irretrievability and difficulty of controlling the cement excess beyond the abutment joint. The cement excess can be a major cause of peri-implantitis [13–15]. Screw-retained implant restoration has also some disadvantages including the difficulty to get a right positioning of the access-hole compatible with a suitable aesthetic appearance and the aesthetic result of the access-hole restoration [16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study

Tanimura¹,

Suzuki

2017

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundScrew retained implant prostheses seem to be an efficient restorative method to prevent peri-implantitis caused by cement excess around the abutment. The drawback of the screw-retained prostheses is the difficulty to realize an efficient access-hole filling functionally and aesthetically. Up to now, few in vitro and in vivo studies were reported in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical performances of two direct filling materials through a period of 12 months.MethodsTo pursue a previous in vitro evaluation, this in vivo 12 months prospective study followed up and compared the access-hole filling integrity of a modified 4-META (4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitate anhydride)/MMA-TBB (methyl methacrylate-tri-n-butyl borane) – based resin (M4M) and a photo-polymerizing nano-hybrid composite resin (CR).Twenty-eight access-holes were filled with both materials respectively, then impressions and intra-oral photographs were taken at T = 0, T = 1 M (month), 3, 6, and 12 M. The access-hole surface measurement and the margin analysis (depth and angle) were carried out. The VAS (visual analogue scale) value on marginal discoloration and integrity at the baseline T = 0 and T = 12 M was recorded.ResultsThe mean values of the surface areas changes from T = 1 to T = 12 M were 83.3 ± 11.5% for group CR and 77.1 ± 13.1% for group M4M, respectively. (Mann-Whitney test p < 0.05, p = 0.046). The mean marginal depth at T = 12 M for group CR were 141.2 ± 125.5 μm and 132.1 ± 107.8 μm for the group M4M, respectively. (Mann-Whitney test p > 0.05, p = 0.58). The mean values of the angle formed at the margin (T = 12 M) were for group CR 39.5 ± 19.4° and 28.2 ± 17.2° for group M4M, respectively (Mann-Whitney test p < 0.0001). The photographical analysis by VAS values showed no significant difference between CR and M4M groups (Mann-Whitney test p > 0.05, p = 0.848).ConclusionsBased on intra- and extra-oral evaluations with the limitation, both CR and M4M combined with a ceramic primer are indicated as promising materials to fill the access-hole. Further long-term investigation is necessary to confirm this finding.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study

Tanimura¹,

Suzuki

2017

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this regard, low viscosity cements, restorations with deep margins, and greater implant diameter are more susceptible to excess cement, bleeding on probing, suppuration, and peri‐implant attachment loss . To facilitate removal of remaining cement in the sulcus, the undercuts should also be reduced to a minimum …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cement Selection for Cement‐Retained Implant‐Supported Prostheses: A Literature Review

Nematollahi

Beyabanaki

Alikhasi

2015

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cement-retained implant-supported prostheses are widely used for restoring missing teeth; however, they show some complications in comparison to screw-retained restorations, such as difficulty in retrieving the restoration and biocompatibility of cement. Therefore, the practitioner should consider several important aspects when using this type of restoration. In this regard, one major concern is appropriate cement selection, with considerations including cement biologic compatibility, methods for limiting the excess cement, ease of removing the excess cement, radiographic view of the cement, and also the possibility of future retrieval of the prosthesis. The aim of this review article was to address most aspects related to this type of prosthesis in terms of cementation.

show abstract

“…It is known, that cemented implant‐supported restorations reveal a higher incidence of biological complications compared to solely screw‐retained restorations and are, therefore, at a higher risk of increased bone loss (>2 mm) or even implant loss . Linkevicius and coworkers showed that the amount of undetected cement correlates with the implant diameter, the extent of undercuts and increases when the restoration margin is located deeper subgingivally . Even experienced investigators might not be able to completely remove excessed cement remnants .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peri‐implant bone response to retrieved human zirconia oral implants after a 4‐year loading period: A histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of 22 cases

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Clinical Factors Influencing Removal of the Cement Excess in Implant‐Supported Restorations

Abstract: If cemented crown restoration is desired, undercuts should be reduced to a minimum for better removal of cement excess, irrespective of the diameter and location of the implants in the mouth.

Cited by 54 publications

References 18 publications

Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study

Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study

Cement Selection for Cement‐Retained Implant‐Supported Prostheses: A Literature Review

Peri‐implant bone response to retrieved human zirconia oral implants after a 4‐year loading period: A histologic and histomorphometric evaluation of 22 cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About