Literature DB >> 24843401

A modified technique for extraoral cementation of implant retained restorations for preventing excess cement around the margins.

Emir Yuzbasioglu1.   

Abstract

The major drawback of cement-retained restorations is the extrusion of the excess cement into the peri-implant sulcus, with subsequent complications. Insufficient removal of the excess cement may initiate a local inflammatory process, which may lead to implant failure. This article presents a method of controlling cement flow on implant abutments, minimizing the excess cement around implant-retained restorations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cement retained restorations; Excess cement; Peri-implant disease

Year:  2014        PMID: 24843401      PMCID: PMC4024560          DOI: 10.4047/jap.2014.6.2.146

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont        ISSN: 2005-7806            Impact factor:   1.904


  16 in total

1.  Techniques to minimize excess luting agent in cement-retained implant restorations.

Authors:  Herman B Dumbrigue; Azhaar A Abanomi; Linda L Cheng
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.426

2.  Endosseous implant failure influenced by crown cementation: a clinical case report.

Authors:  Ricardo Gapski; Neil Neugeboren; Alan Z Pomeranz; Marc W Reissner
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.804

3.  A new gingival retraction impression system for a one-stage root-form implant.

Authors:  J D Jones; D A Kaiser
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 3.426

4.  Screw- versus cement-retained implant restorations: current concepts.

Authors:  Angie Lee; Kozue Okayasu; Hom-Lay Wang
Journal:  Implant Dent       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 2.454

5.  Clinical effectiveness of implant-supported single-tooth replacement: the Toronto Study.

Authors:  L Avivi-Arber; G A Zarb
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  1996 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.804

6.  Cement removal from restorations luted to titanium abutments with simulated subgingival margins.

Authors:  J R Agar; S M Cameron; J C Hughbanks; M H Parker
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 3.426

7.  Retrospective review of 1170 endosseous implants placed in partially edentulous jaws.

Authors:  S E Eckert; P C Wollan
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 3.426

Review 8.  Infectious risks for oral implants: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Marc Quirynen; Marc De Soete; Daniel van Steenberghe
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 5.977

Review 9.  Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry.

Authors:  K S Hebel; R C Gajjar
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.426

10.  The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study.

Authors:  Thomas G Wilson
Journal:  J Periodontol       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 6.993

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Clinical applications of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape in restorative dentistry.

Authors:  M M Sattar; M Patel; A Alani
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 1.626

Review 2.  Retention failures in cement- and screw-retained fixed restorations on dental implants in partially edentulous arches: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jatin K Jain; Rajesh Sethuraman; Sameer Chauhan; Piyush Javiya; Shreya Srivastava; Rutvik Patel; Bhagyashri Bhalani
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2018 Jul-Sep
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.