Literature DB >> 33550338

[Comparison of residual cement between CAD/CAM customized abutments and stock abutments via digital measurement in vitro].

Z G Yue1, H D Zhang1, J W Yang2, J X Hou1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the residual cement between computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing customized abutments (CCA) and stock abutments (SA), and to evaluate the feasibility of digital measurement for residual cement volume by three-dimensional scanning.
METHODS: Twenty master models needed in this study were all taken from one 47-year-old patient with arrested periodontitis, who had already had an implant placed at his right upper central incisor site in the Department of Periodonto-logy, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology. After 4 weeks of soft tissue conditioning by means of customized healing abutment, the height of peri-implant soft tissue was measured, from the implant platform to mucosal margin, as 5 mm. Using customized impression coping, the impression was taken and twenty models were fabricated and allocated to 4 groups according to the type of abutments: CCA1 (5 mm transmucosal height CCA, with margin at tissue level), CCA2 (4 mm transmucosal height CCA, with 1 mm submucosal margin), SA1 (3 mm transmucosal height SA, with 2 mm submucosal margin) and SA2 (1 mm transmucosal height SA, with 4 mm submucosal margin). Crowns were cemented to the abutments, which were seated on the working models. Excess cement was removed by a prosthodontic specialist. Thereafter, the volume of residual cement was evaluated by using three-dimensional scanning technique. The area proportion of residual cement was calculated on photographs taken by a single lens reflex camera. The weight of residual cement was weighed by an analytical balance. And the correlation of residual cement volume data with residual cement area proportion or weight of residual cement acquired by traditional methods was analyzed.
RESULTS: Residual cement was observed on all the experiment samples. The residual cement volume of CCA was significantly less than that of SA [(0.635 3±0.535 4) mm3 vs. (2.293 8±0.943 8) mm3, P < 0.001]. Consistently, CCA had less residual cement area proportion and weight than those of SA [area proportion: 7.57%±2.99% vs. 22.68%±10.06%, P < 0.001; weight: (0.001 5±0.001 0) g vs. (0.003 7±0.001 4) g, P < 0.001]. The residual cement volume was strongly correlated with the residual cement area proportion and residual cement weight (r>0.75, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: These in vitro results suggest that CCA minimized the residual cement more effectively than SA. The method to digitally evaluate the residual cement volume is feasible, but its validity and reliability need to be further studied.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Computer-aided design; Dental cements; Dental implant-abutment design; Imaging, three-dimensional; In vitro

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33550338      PMCID: PMC7867975     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban        ISSN: 1671-167X


  25 in total

1.  Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: which is better?

Authors:  W Chee; D A Felton; P F Johnson; D Y Sullivan
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  1999 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.804

2.  Undetected residual cement on standard or individualized all-ceramic abutments with cemented zirconia single crowns - a prospective randomized pilot trial.

Authors:  Stefanie Kappel; Constantin Eiffler; Justo Lorenzo-Bermejo; Thomas Stober; Peter Rammelsberg
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2015-09-18       Impact factor: 5.977

3.  The influence of margin location on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant restorations.

Authors:  Tomas Linkevicius; Egle Vindasiute; Algirdas Puisys; Vytaute Peciuliene
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2011-03-08       Impact factor: 5.977

4.  A technique for minimizing subgingival residual cement by using rubber dam for cement-retained implant crowns.

Authors:  Chi-Won Seo; Jae-Min Seo
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 3.426

5.  The "UCLA" abutment.

Authors:  S Lewis; J Beumer; W Hornburg; P Moy
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.804

6.  Prevalence and predictive factors for peri-implant disease and implant failure: a cross-sectional analysis.

Authors:  Diane M Daubert; Bradley F Weinstein; Sandra Bordin; Brian G Leroux; Thomas F Flemming
Journal:  J Periodontol       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 6.993

7.  Does residual cement around implant-supported restorations cause peri-implant disease? A retrospective case analysis.

Authors:  Tomas Linkevicius; Algirdas Puisys; Egle Vindasiute; Laura Linkeviciene; Peteris Apse
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2012-08-08       Impact factor: 5.977

8.  Cement-associated peri-implantitis: a retrospective clinical observational study of fixed implant-supported restorations using a methacrylate cement.

Authors:  Michael Korsch; Ursula Obst; Winfried Walther
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2013-04-21       Impact factor: 5.977

9.  Soft tissue reaction to de novo plaque formation on implants and teeth. An experimental study in the dog.

Authors:  T Berglundh; J Lindhe; C Marinello; I Ericsson; B Liljenberg
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 5.977

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.