RETAINED EXCESS RESIN CEMENT AROUND TISSUE LEVEL IMPLANTS USING TWO DIFFERENT CEMENTATION TECHNIQUES (AN IN VITRO STUDY)
Abdelazeem, D., Koheil, S., Abdel-Fattah, W. (2019). RETAINED EXCESS RESIN CEMENT AROUND TISSUE LEVEL IMPLANTS USING TWO DIFFERENT CEMENTATION TECHNIQUES (AN IN VITRO STUDY). EKB Journal Management System, 44(2), 73-76. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.57366
Diana M. Abdelazeem; Samir A. Koheil; Wegdan M. Abdel-Fattah. "RETAINED EXCESS RESIN CEMENT AROUND TISSUE LEVEL IMPLANTS USING TWO DIFFERENT CEMENTATION TECHNIQUES (AN IN VITRO STUDY)". EKB Journal Management System, 44, 2, 2019, 73-76. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.57366
Abdelazeem, D., Koheil, S., Abdel-Fattah, W. (2019). 'RETAINED EXCESS RESIN CEMENT AROUND TISSUE LEVEL IMPLANTS USING TWO DIFFERENT CEMENTATION TECHNIQUES (AN IN VITRO STUDY)', EKB Journal Management System, 44(2), pp. 73-76. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.57366
Abdelazeem, D., Koheil, S., Abdel-Fattah, W. RETAINED EXCESS RESIN CEMENT AROUND TISSUE LEVEL IMPLANTS USING TWO DIFFERENT CEMENTATION TECHNIQUES (AN IN VITRO STUDY). EKB Journal Management System, 2019; 44(2): 73-76. doi: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.57366

RETAINED EXCESS RESIN CEMENT AROUND TISSUE LEVEL IMPLANTS USING TWO DIFFERENT CEMENTATION TECHNIQUES (AN IN VITRO STUDY)

Alexandria Dental Journal
Article 12, Volume 44, Issue 2, August 2019, Page 73-76  XML PDF (176.87 K)
DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2019.57366
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Diana M. Abdelazeem1; Samir A. Koheil2; Wegdan M. Abdel-Fattah2
1B.D.S. Faculty of Dentistry Alexandria University and Instructor of Conservative Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
2Professor of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry Alexandria University
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The main disadvantage of a resin cement-retained implant fixed prosthesis is the entrapment of residual excess cement in the peri-implant tissues. Remaining cement has been shown to be associated with peri-implant inflammation and bleeding. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to detect the retained excess resin cement around tissue level dental implants, and to determine which method of cementation will show less amount of retained excess cement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fourteen tissue level implants (OCO Biomedical, Inc. Albuquerque, U.S.A.) were embedded in drilling models (Salvin Dental Specialties, Inc. Charlotte, U.S.A.) having rubber surface covering simulating the gingiva. Fourteen metal copings were fabricated (Realloy e.k, Sliemsdyk 50, Krefeld, Germany). RelyX U200 (TM3M, ESPE Dental Products. St. Paul, U.S.A.) dual cure resin cement was used for cementation of the metal copings to the implants. The implants were divided into two main groups according to cementation technique (n=7): Group (A): non vented tack curing of the excess cement for three seconds then the excess resin cement was carefully removed. Group (B): occlusal vent was performed on the occlusal surface of the metal copings to allow excess cement to be extruded through the vent hole; then all the excess cement from the vent and margins was removed. The rubber coverage was removed and the retained cement was collected and the net weight of the retained cement was determined. RESULTS: Mann-Whitney U test revealed a statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between the non-vented tack cure and the occlusal vent groups in the amount of retained excess cement, with the occlusal vent group (B) had more excess cement percentage than the non vented tack cure group (A). CONCLUSIONS: Tack curing of the excess resin cement during the cementation of implant-supported restorations might reduce the cement residue, but still couldn’t remove the problem of excess resin cement around dental implants.
Keywords
Tissue level implant; excess resin cement; tack cure; occlusal vent
References
  1. Shapoff CA, Lahey BJ. Crestal bone loss and the consequences of retained excess cement around dental implants. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2012;33: 94-6.
  2. Linkevicius T, Puisys A, Vindasiute E, Linkeviciene L, Apse P. Does residual cement around implant-supported restorations cause peri-implant disease? A retrospective case analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:1179-84.
  3. Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Linkeviciene L, Maslova N, Puriene A. The influence of the cementation margin position on the amount of undetected cement. A prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:71-6.
  4. Oh TJ, Yoon J, Misch CE, Wang HL. The causes of early implant bone loss: myth or science? J Periodontol. 2002;73:322-33
  5. Mombelli A, Lang N. The diagnosis and treatment of periimplantitis. Periodontol 2000. 1998;17:63-76.
  6. Wolfart M, Wolfart S, Kern M. Retention forces and seating discrepancies of implant-retained castings after cementation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21:519- 25.
  7. Frisch E, Ratka-Krüger P, Weigl P, Woelber J. Minimizing excess cement in implant-supported fixed restorations using an extraoral replica technique: a prospective 1-year study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30:1355-61.
  8. Shortall AC, Fayyad MA, Williams JD. Marginal seal of injection-molded ceramic crowns cemented with three adhesive systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;61:24-7.
  9. White SN, Sorensen JA, Kang SK, Caputo AA. Microleakage of new crown and fixed partial denture luting agents. J Prosthet Dent. 1992; 67: 156-61.
  10. White SN, Yu Z, Tom JF, Sangsurasak S. In vivo microleakage of luting cements for cast crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71:333-8.
  11. Agar JR, Cameron SM, Hughbanks JC, Parker MH. Cement removal from restorations luted to titanium abutments with simulated subgingival margins. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78:43-7.
  12. Fox SC, Moriarty JD, Kusy R. The effects of scaling a titanium implant surface with metal and plastic instruments: an in vitro study. J Periodontol. 1990;61:485-90.
  13. Liang T, Hu X, Zhu L, Pan X, Zhou Y, Liu J. Comparative in vitro study of cementing techniques for implantsupported restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116:59-66.
  14. Schwedhelm ER, Lepe X, Aw TC. A crown venting technique for the cementation of implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89:89-90.
  15. Begum Z, Sonika R, Pratik C. Effect of different cementation techniques on retained excess cement and uniaxial retention of the implant-supported prosthesis: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:1333- 7.
  16. Corrales RJ, Koudriavtsev TV. Effect of preseating on the extrusion of excess cement at the crown abutment margin and the associated tensile force for cement retained implant restorations. A pilot study. Int J Dent Sci. 2015;43-51.
  17. Sunico-Segarra M, Segarra A. Clinical Procedures. In: A Practical Clinical Guide to Resin Cements. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2015.
  18. Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Peciuliene V. The influence of margin location on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:1379-84.
  19. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.; Released 2012.
  20. Mann HB, Whitney DR. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat. 1947: 50-60.
  21. Buser D, Schmid B, Belser UC, Cochran DL. The new bone level implants – clinical rationale for the development and current indications for daily practice. Int Dent SA. 2010;12:58-66.
  22. Kappel S, Eiffler C, Lorenzo-Bermejo J, Stober T, Rammelsberg P. Undetected residual cement on standard or individualized all-ceramic abutments with cemented zirconia single crowns – a prospective randomized pilot trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:1065-71.
  23. Sancho-Puchades M, Crameri D, Ozcan M, Sailer I, Jung RE, Hammerle CHF, Thoma DS. The influence of the emergence profile on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant reconstructions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;1-8.
  24. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences. A Clinical Evaluation to Assess the Amount of Residual Excess Cement when Using Prefabricated and Custom Fabricated Implant Abutment and a Modified Final Restoration. J Dent Med Sci. 2017;16:86-91.
  25. Pereira SMB, Anami LC, Pereira CA, Souza ROA, Kantorski KZ, Bottino MA, et al. Bacterial Colonization in the Marginal Region of Ceramic Restorations: Effects of Different Cement Removal Methods and Polishing. Operative Dent. 2016;6:642- 54.
  26. Mansour YF, Pintado MR, Mitchell CA. Optimizing resin cement removal around esthetic crown margins. Randomized controlled trial. Acta Odontol Scand. 2006;64:231-6.
  27. Hatrick CD, Eakle WS, Bird WF. Dental Materials: Clinical Applications for Dental assistants and Dental Hygienists. USA: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2015. 384.
  28. Michelle S, Armin S. A Practical Clinical Guide to Resin Cements. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2015. 
  29. Kaufman L. Proper Clean-Up: Removing Excess/Residual Resin-Based Dental Cement. Dent Learn. 2015;3:49-51.
  30. McAllister BS. Rationale for the Vented-crown Technique and its Application in Today’s Dental Practice. Operative Dent 2008;2:116-20.
  31. Clark MT, Richards MW, Meiers JC. Seating accuracy and fracture strength of vented and non-vented ceramic crowns luted with three cements. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:18-23.
  32. Yeung TC, Lai YL, Hsieh YL, Lee SY. The effect of cement and venting design on the retentive strength and marginal adaptation of CeraOne implant prostheses. Chin Dent J 2005;24:95-100.
  33. Jones MD, Dykema RW, Klein AI. Television micromeasurement of vented and non-vented cast crown marginal adaptation. Dent Clin North Am. 1971;15:663-77.
  34. Cooper TM, Christensen GJ, Laswell HR. Effect of venting on cast gold full crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1971;26:621-5.
  35. Yeun TWH, Wilson PR. The effect of venting on pulpward pressure transmission and seating on crown cementation: a laboratory study. J Oral Rehabil. 2000;27:958-66. 
Statistics
Article View: 295
PDF Download: 621