Acta Scientific Dental Sciences (ISSN: 2581-4893)

Research Article Volume 4 Issue 9

A Comparative Evaluation of Cement Application Methods on Marginal Discrepancies and Retention of Cement Retained Implant Restorations: An In Vitro Study

Swati Jain*, Preeti Satheesh and Malathi Dayalan

Department of Prosthodontics, Oxford Dental College, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

*Corresponding Author: Swati Jain, Department of Prosthodontics, Oxford Dental College, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Received: July 25, 2020; Published: August 27, 2020

×

Abstract

Purpose of the Study: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retention values and marginal adaptation of implant- supported metal crowns using four different cementation techniques.

Materials and Methodology: Eighty implant abutment complex (IAC) and metal crowns with defect free and smooth marginal surface were used in the study. Each IAC was composed of a 5.5 mm high titanium abutment screwed onto a 10mm long stainless steel implant analog with 25 Ncm torque according to manufacturer’s instructions. The specimens were divided into four groups (groups A-D, twenty specimens per group) according to the cementation technique employed. In Group A, cement was evenly placed over the entire interior marginal surface (IMS) of the crown. In Group B, cement was evenly placed only on the occlusal surface of the crown. In Group C, cement was evenly applied on all the axial walls of interior surface of crown excluding occlusal surface In Group D resin abutment replica technique was used. Zinc phosphate cement (DPI, Harvard) was used for all cementation procedures according to manufacturer’s instructions. All specimens were subjected to 1000 thermal cycles between 5˚C and 55˚C with a dwell time of 10 seconds in a thermocycling device. Marginal accuracy was detected after cementation of all specimens by stereomicroscope. The tensile force required to dislodge the copings were determined using a universal testing machine with a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/ min. Data was collected and statistically analyzed.

Results: Highly significant differences in the marginal discrepancies were observed when different cementation techniques were used. Group D (abutment replica) had the highest mean retentive strength while having the least marginal discrepancy when compared to other groups.

Conclusion: Based on the results obtained from this study it was concluded that the use of abutment replica technique resulted in the best marginal adaptation retention of cement retained implant prosthesis as compared to other techniques used in the study.

Keywords: Implant Crown Cementation; Marginal Discrepancy; Peri Implantitis

×

References

  1. Present S and Levine RA. “Techniques to control or avoid cement around implant‑retained restorations”. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentististry 34 (2013): 432‑437.
  2. “Academy report: Peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a current understanding of their diagnoses and clinical implications”. Journal of Periodontology4 (2013): 436-443.
  3. Wilson TG Jr. “The positive relationship between excess cement and peri‑implant disease: A prospective clinical endoscopic study”. Journal of Periodontology 80 (2009): 1388‑1392.
  4. Wadhwani C and Piñeyro A. “Implant cementation, step by step guidance and advice to help you acquire confident technique”. Nobel Biocare News 13 (2011): 11.
  5. Chee WW., et al. “Retrievable cemented implant restorations”. Journal of Prosthodontics 7 (1998): 120‑125.
  6. Chee W and Jivraj S. “Screw versus cemented implant supported restorations”. British Dental Journal 201 (2006): 501‑507.
  7. Chee W., et al. “Cemented versus screw‑retained implant prostheses: Which is better?” International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 14 (1999): 137‑141.
  8. Hebel KS and Gajjar RC. “Cement‑retained versus screw‑retained implant restorations: Achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 77 (1997): 28‑35.
  9. Wolfart M., et al. “Retention forces and seating discrepancies of implant- retained castings after cementation”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 21 (2006): 519-525.
  10. Dumbrigue HB., et al. “Techniques to minimize excess luting agent in cement-retained implant restorations”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 87 (2002): 112-114.
  11. Sharifi N., et al. “Alternative restorative techniques of the CeraOne single- tooth abutment. A technical note”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 9 (1994): 235-238.
  12. Agar JR., et al. “Cement removal from restorations luted to titanium abutments with simulated subgingival margins”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 78 (1997): 43-47.
  13. Schwedhelm ER., et al. “A crown venting technique for the cementation of implant-supported crowns”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 89 (2003): 89-90.
  14. Chee WW., et al. “Evaluation of the amount of excess cement around the margins of cement retained dental implant restorations: the effect of the cement application method”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 109 (2013): 216-221
  15. Wadhwani C and Pi˜neyro A. “Technique for controlling the cement for an implant crown”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 102 (2009): 57-58.
  16. Schiessl C., et al. “Factors determining the retentiveness of luting agents used with metal- and ceramic-based implant components”. Clinical Oral Investigation 17 (2013): 1179-1190.
  17. Augstin-Panadero R and Fons-Font. “A Zirconia versus metal: A preliminary comparative analysis of ceramic veneer behavior”. International Journal of Prosthodontics 25 (2012): 294-300.
  18. Clayton GH., et al. “The effect of luting agents on the retention and marginal adaptation of the ceraOne implant system”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 12 (1997): 660-665.
  19. Li TH., et al. “Retention and marginal adaptation of luting agents on dental implant-supported prostheses”. Taiwan Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 25 (2014): 88-99.
  20. Pan YH and Lin CK. “The effect of luting agents on the retention of dental implant-supported crowns”. Chang Gung Medical Journal 28 (2005): 403-410.
  21. Baig MR., et al. “Evaluation of the marginal fit of a zirconia ceramic computer-aided machined (CAM) crown system”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 104 (2010): 216-227.
  22. Boening KW., et al. “Clinical fit of Procera AllCeram crowns”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 84 (2000): 419-424.
  23. Pjetursson BE., et al. “A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic reconstructions after an observation period of at least 3 years. Part I: Single crowns”. Clinical Oral Implants Research 18 (2007): 73-85.
  24. Suarez MJ., et al. “Comparison of the marginal fit of Procera All Ceram crowns with two finish lines”. International Journal of Prosthodontics 16 (2003): 229-232.
  25. Tan PL., et al. “An in vitro comparison of vertical marginal gaps of CAD/CAM titanium and conventional cast restorations”. Journal of Prosthodontics 17 (2008): 378-383.
  26. Breeding LC., et al. “Use of luting agents with an implant system: Part”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 68 (1992): 737-741.
  27. Pauletto N., et al. “Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: a clinical report”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 14 (1999): 865-868.
  28. Gapski R., et al. “Endosseous implant failure influenced by crown cementation: a clinical case report”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 23 (2008): 943-946.
  29. Linkevicius T., et al. “The influence of margin location on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement retained implant restorations”. Clinical Oral Implant Research 22 (2011): 1379-1384.
  30. Korsch M., et al. “Predictors of excess cement and tissue response to fixed implant-supported dentures after cementation”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 17 (2015): 45-53.
  31. Valderhaug J and Heloe LA. “Oral hygiene in a group of supervised patients with fixed prostheses”. Journal of Periodontology 48 (1977): 221-224.
  32. Vindasiute E., et al. “Clinical factors influencing removal of the cement excess in implant-supported restorations”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 17 (2015): 771-778.
  33. Wadhwani C., et al. “Radiographic detection and characteristic patterns of residual excess cement associated 268 Volume 119 Issue 2 with cement-retained implant restorations: a clinical report”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 107 (2012): 151-157.
  34. Gale MS and Darvell BW. “Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations”. Journal of Dentistry 27 (1999): 89-90.
  35. Squier RS., et al. “Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 16 (2001): 793-798.
  36. White SN., et al. “Microleakage of new crown and fixed partial denture luting agents”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 67 (1992): 156-161.
  37. GaRey DJ., et al. “Effects of thermocycling, load-cycling, and blood contamination on cemented implant abutments”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 71 (1994): 124-132.
  38. Eckert SE and Wollan PC. “Retrospective review of 1170 endosseous implants placed in partially edentulous jaws”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 79 (1998): 415-421.
  39. Holmes JR., et al. “Considerations in measurement of marginal fit”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 62 (1989): 405-407.
  40. Sutherland JK., et al. “Marginal discrepancy of all-ceramic crowns cemented on implant abutments”. Journal of Prosthodontics 4 (1995): 173-177.
  41. Clayton GH., et al. “The effect of luting agents on the retention and marginal adaptation of the CeraOne implant system”. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 12 (1997): 660-665.
  42. Tian L., et al. “Comparative in vitro study of cementing techniques for implant supported restorations”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 116 (2016): 59-66.
  43. Gervais MJ and Wilson PR. “A rationale for retrievability of fixed, implantsupported prostheses: a complication-based analysis”. International Journal of Prosthodontics 20 (2007): 13-24.
  44. Carter SM and Wilson PR. “The effects of die-spacing on post-cementation crown elevation and retention”. Australian Dental Journal 42 (1997): 192-198.
  45. Galván G., et al. “Cemented implant restoration: A technique for minimizing adverse biologic consequences”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 114 (2015): 482-485.
  46. Kaar D., et al. “The effect of fatigue damage on the force required to remove a restoration in a cement-retained implant system”. Journal of Prosthodontics 15 (2006): 289-294.
×

Citation

Citation: Swati Jain., et al. “A Comparative Evaluation of Cement Application Methods on Marginal Discrepancies and Retention of Cement Retained Implant Restorations: An In Vitro Study”. Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 4.9 (2020): 155-163.



Member In





News and Events


  • Certification for Review
    Acta Scientific certifies the Editors/reviewers for their review done towards the assigned articles of the respective journals.
  • Submission Timeline for Upcoming Issue
    The last date for submission of articles for regular Issues is September 30, 2020.
  • Publication Certificate
    Authors will be issued a "Publication Certificate" as a mark of appreciation for publishing their work.
  • Best Article of the Issue
    The Editors will elect one Best Article after each issue release. The authors of this article will be provided with a certificate of “Best Article of the Issue”.
  • Welcoming Article Submission
    Acta Scientific delightfully welcomes active researchers for submission of articles towards the upcoming issue of respective journals.
  • Contact US