Literature DB >> 36264869

Should the vent hole of posterior implant crowns be placed on the lateral surface? An in vitro study of the hydrodynamic feature of cement extrusion and retention ability.

Sixian Ye1,2, Huangjun Zhou1,2, Xingyu Lyu2,3, Hao Feng2,4, Min Liu2,5, Cai Wen1,2,6.   

Abstract

Although placing a vent hole on the occlusal surface of the implant crown can reduce cervical marginal cement extrusion, it has disadvantages. Transferring the hole to the buccal or lingual surface of the posterior implant crown could therefore be an alternative solution. This study investigated the effect of transferring the vent hole to the lateral side of the implant posterior crown on the hydrodynamics of excess cement extrusion and the crown's retention ability. Specially fabricated posterior implant crowns were divided into five groups: crowns with an occlusal hole (OH), occlusal lateral hole (OLH), middle lateral hole (MLH), cervical lateral hole (CLH), and no hole (NH). Each set of implant analog-abutment-crown specimens was wrapped in a polymethylacrylate base. The base of the implant crown was divided into four 90-degree quadrants along the diagonal of the square base with a pen mark. Cement was used to bond the crowns and the abutments, and the weight of cement extrusions at the vent holes and the abutment cervical margins were calculated. The distribution of cement extrusion at the margin was photographed in each quadrant, and the areas of surface coverage of cement extrusion were compared with ImageJ software. Retentive strength was measured as the dislocation force using a universal testing machine. One-way analysis of variance was used for result analysis. The cervical marginal cement extrusions of crowns with lateral holes (OLH, MLH, and CLH) were significantly less than that of NH crowns (P<0.05), but more than that of OH crowns (P<0.05). Subgroup analysis among the lateral hole groups indicated that the higher the position of the lateral hole, the lower the weight of the cement extrusion, and the smaller the total distribution area of cement extrusion. The cement extrusion distribution area was larger in the quadrant with the hole than in those opposite and next to the hole. Retention strength comparison indicated no significant difference between crowns with NH, OH, or lateral holes. Transferring the vent hole of the posterior implant crown to the lateral side could reduce cement extrusion at the cervical margin while reducing retention strength deterioration and the esthetic drawbacks caused by occlusal hole opening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36264869      PMCID: PMC9584542          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276198

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.752


  34 in total

1.  An analysis of the effect of a vent hole on excess cement expressed at the crown-abutment margin for cement-retained implant crowns.

Authors:  Dipan Patel; James C F Invest; Christopher J Tredwin; Derrick J Setchell; David R Moles
Journal:  J Prosthodont       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.752

2.  The up-to-11-year survival and success of implants and abutment teeth under solely implant-supported and combined tooth-implant-supported double crown-retained removable dentures.

Authors:  Hannah Fobbe; Peter Rammelsberg; Justo Lorenzo Bermejo; Stefanie Kappel
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2019-09-09       Impact factor: 5.977

3.  Effects of the Screw-Access Hole Diameter on the Biomechanical Behaviors of 4 Types of Cement-Retained Implant Prosthodontic Systems and Their Surrounding Cortical Bones: A 3D Finite Element Analysis.

Authors:  Liangzhi Du; Zhe Li; Xiaofeng Chang; Omar Rahhal; Bowen Qin; Xi Wen; Dangxia Zhou
Journal:  Implant Dent       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.454

4.  Effect of Preseating, Screw Access Opening, and Vent Holes on Extrusion of Excess Cement at the Crown-Abutment Margin and Associated Tensile Force for Cement-Retained Implant Restorations.

Authors:  Rodrigo A Jimenez; Tatiana Vargas-Koudriavtsev
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2016 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.804

5.  Characterization of Cement Particles Found in Peri-implantitis-Affected Human Biopsy Specimens.

Authors:  Maria Burbano; Thomas G Wilson; Pilar Valderrama; Jonathan Blansett; Chandur P K Wadhwani; Pankaj K Choudhary; Lucas C Rodriguez; Danieli C Rodrigues
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.804

Review 6.  A systematic review of screw- versus cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations.

Authors:  Sami Sherif; Harlyn K Susarla; Theodoros Kapos; Deborah Munoz; Brian M Chang; Robert F Wright
Journal:  J Prosthodont       Date:  2013-12-31       Impact factor: 2.752

7.  Long-term implant survival and success: a 10-16-year follow-up of non-submerged dental implants.

Authors:  Pierre Simonis; Thomas Dufour; Henri Tenenbaum
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 5.977

Review 8.  Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo Lemos; Victor Eduardo de Souza Batista; Daniel Augusto de Faria Almeida; Joel Ferreira Santiago Júnior; Fellippo Ramos Verri; Eduardo Piza Pellizzer
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2015-11-14       Impact factor: 3.426

9.  Selection of 1-mm venting or 2.5-mm screw access holes on implant crowns based on cement extrusion and retention capacity.

Authors:  Huangjun Zhou; Sixian Ye; Min Liu; Hao Feng; Cai Wen
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2022-04-02       Impact factor: 2.757

Review 10.  A systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the survival, the failure, and the complication rates of veneered and monolithic all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns.

Authors:  Bjarni Elvar Pjetursson; Irena Sailer; Andrey Latyshev; Kerstin Rabel; Ralf-Joachim Kohal; Duygu Karasan
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2021-10       Impact factor: 5.021

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.