OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the amount of undetected cement after cementation and cleaning of implant-supported restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty three patients were treated with 53 single implant-supported metal-ceramic restorations. The subgingival location of the margin of each implant was measured with a periodontal probe mesially, distally, buccaly, and lingually(,) resulting in 212 measurements. The data were divided into four groups: equally with tissue level (14 samples), 1 mm subgingivally (56), 2 mm (74), and 3 mm (68) below tissues contour. Metal-ceramic restorations were fabricated with occlusal openings and cemented on standard abutments with resin-reinforced glass-ionomer. After cleaning, a radiograph was taken to assess if all cement had been removed. Then the abutment/crown unit was unscrewed for evaluation. All quadrants of the specimens and peri-implant tissues were photographed and analyzed with Adobe Photoshop. Two proportions were calculated: (1) the relation between the cement remnants area and the total area of the abutment/restoration and (2) the relation between the cement remnants and the total area of implant soft tissue contour. Significance set to 0.05. RESULTS: Excess on the crown groups: 1 (0.002 ± 0.001); 2 (0.024 ± 0.005); 3 (0.036 ± 0.004); 4 (0.055 ± 0.007). Undetected excess increased when the margin was located deeper subgingivally (P = 0.000), significant difference was found among all groups (P ≤ 0.05). Remnants in the soft tissue groups: 1 (0.014 ± 0.006); 2 (0.052 ± 0.011); 3 (0.057 ± 0.009); 4 (0.071 ± 0.012). The increase of the remnants was statistically reliable (P = 0.0045), significant difference was found between group 1 and 2 (P ≤ 0.05). Radiographic evaluation showed that cement remnants mesially were visible in four cases of 53 or 7.5%, and in six cases of 53 distally (11.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The deeper the position of the margin, the greater amount of undetected cement was discovered. Dental radiographs should not be considered as a reliable method for cement excess evaluation.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the amount of undetected cement after cementation and cleaning of implant-supported restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty three patients were treated with 53 single implant-supported metal-ceramic restorations. The subgingival location of the margin of each implant was measured with a periodontal probe mesially, distally, buccaly, and lingually(,) resulting in 212 measurements. The data were divided into four groups: equally with tissue level (14 samples), 1 mm subgingivally (56), 2 mm (74), and 3 mm (68) below tissues contour. Metal-ceramic restorations were fabricated with occlusal openings and cemented on standard abutments with resin-reinforced glass-ionomer. After cleaning, a radiograph was taken to assess if all cement had been removed. Then the abutment/crown unit was unscrewed for evaluation. All quadrants of the specimens and peri-implant tissues were photographed and analyzed with Adobe Photoshop. Two proportions were calculated: (1) the relation between the cement remnants area and the total area of the abutment/restoration and (2) the relation between the cement remnants and the total area of implant soft tissue contour. Significance set to 0.05. RESULTS: Excess on the crown groups: 1 (0.002 ± 0.001); 2 (0.024 ± 0.005); 3 (0.036 ± 0.004); 4 (0.055 ± 0.007). Undetected excess increased when the margin was located deeper subgingivally (P = 0.000), significant difference was found among all groups (P ≤ 0.05). Remnants in the soft tissue groups: 1 (0.014 ± 0.006); 2 (0.052 ± 0.011); 3 (0.057 ± 0.009); 4 (0.071 ± 0.012). The increase of the remnants was statistically reliable (P = 0.0045), significant difference was found between group 1 and 2 (P ≤ 0.05). Radiographic evaluation showed that cement remnants mesially were visible in four cases of 53 or 7.5%, and in six cases of 53 distally (11.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The deeper the position of the margin, the greater amount of undetected cement was discovered. Dental radiographs should not be considered as a reliable method for cement excess evaluation.
Authors: Jose Rosas; Frank Mayta-Tovalino; Violeta Malpartida-Carrillo; Arnaldo Munive Degregori; Roman Mendoza; Maria E Guerrero Journal: Int J Dent Date: 2021-06-21
Authors: Jan K Pietruski; Anna Skurska; Anna Bernaczyk; Robert Milewski; Maria Julia Pietruska; Peter Gehrke; Małgorzata D Pietruska Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 2.757