The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

  • 제14권3호
  • /
  • Pages.162-172
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2005-7806(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-7814(eISSN)
대한치과보철학회 (The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of abutment neck taper and cement types on the amount of remnant cement in cement-retained implant restorations: an in vitro study

  • Park, Yeon-Hee (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Jeonbuk National University, Research Institute of Clinical Medicine of Jeonbuk National University - Biomedical Research Institute of Jeonbuk National University Hospital) ;
  • Kim, Kyoung-A (Department of Dentistry, Daejeon Konyang Medical Center, Konyang University, School of Medicine) ;
  • Lee, Jung-jin (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Jeonbuk National University, Research Institute of Clinical Medicine of Jeonbuk National University - Biomedical Research Institute of Jeonbuk National University Hospital) ;
  • Kwon, Tae-min (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Jeonbuk National University, Research Institute of Clinical Medicine of Jeonbuk National University - Biomedical Research Institute of Jeonbuk National University Hospital) ;
  • Seo, Jae-Min (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Jeonbuk National University, Research Institute of Clinical Medicine of Jeonbuk National University - Biomedical Research Institute of Jeonbuk National University Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2022.02.14
  • 심사 : 2022.06.08
  • 발행 : 2022.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

PURPOSE. The present study aims to analyze the effect of abutment neck taper and types of cement on the amount of undetected remnant cement of cement-retained implant prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three neck taper angles (53°, 65°, 77°) and three types of cement (RMGI: resin-modified glass ionomer, ZPC: zinc phosphate cement, ZOE: zinc oxide eugenol cement) were used. For each group, the surface percentage was measured using digital image and graphic editing software. The weight of before and after removing remnant cement from the abutment-crown assembly was measured using an electronic scale. Two-way ANOVA and Duncan & Scheffe's test were used to compare the calculated surface percentage and weight of remnant cement (α = .05). RESULTS. There were significant differences in remnant cement surface percentage and weight according to neck taper angles (P < .05). However, there were no significant differences in remnant cement surface percentage and weight on types of cement. No interaction was found between neck taper angles and types of luting cement (P > .05). The wide abutment with a small neck taper angle showed the most significant amount of remnant cement. And the types of luting cement did not influence the amount of residual cement. CONCLUSION. To remove excess cement better, the emergence profile of the crown should be straight to the neck taper of the abutment in cement-retained implant restoration.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Roos-Jansaker AM. Long time follow up of implant therapy and treatment of peri-implantitis. Swed Dent J Suppl 2007;(188):7-66.
  2. Behr M, Spitzer A, Preis V, Weng D, Gosau M, Rosentritt M. The extent of luting agent remnants on titanium and zirconia abutment analogs after scaling. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:1185-92. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3523
  3. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res 2012;91:242-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034511431252
  4. Goldberg PV, Higginbottom FL, Wilson TG. Periodontal considerations in restorative and implant therapy. Periodontol 2000 2001;25:100-9. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0757.2001.22250108.x
  5. Parpaiola A, Sbricoli L, Guazzo R, Bressan E, Lops D. Managing the peri-implant mucosa: a clinically reliable method for optimizing soft tissue contours and emergence profile. J Esthet Restor Dent 2013;25:317-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12046
  6. Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:719-28.
  7. Levine RA, Present S, Wilson TG Jr. Complications with excess cement & dental implants: diagnosis, recommendations & treatment of 7 clinical cases. Implant Realities 2014;1:51-9.
  8. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70086-6
  9. Pauletto N, Lahiffe BJ, Walton JN. Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:865-8.
  10. Gapski R, Neugeboren N, Pomeranz AZ, Reissner MW. Endosseous implant failure influenced by crown cementation: a clinical case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:943-6.
  11. Rajan M, Gunaseelan R. Fabrication of a cement- and screw-retained implant prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:578-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.09.009
  12. Heo YK, Lim YJ. A newly designed screw- and cement-retained prosthesis and its abutments. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28:612-4. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4236
  13. Andersson M, Carlsson L, Persson M, Bergman B. Accuracy of machine milling and spark erosion with a CAD/CAM system. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76:187-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90305-4
  14. Priest G. Virtual-designed and computer-milled implant abutments. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2005;63:22-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2005.05.158
  15. Jemt T, Henry P, Linden B, Naert I, Weber H, Bergstrom C. A comparison of laser-welded titanium and conventional cast frameworks supported by implants in the partially edentulous jaw: a 3-year prospective multicenter study. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:282-8.
  16. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12691
  17. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02119.x
  18. Kong L, Sun Y, Hu K, Liu Y, Li D, Qiu Z, Liu B. Selections of the cylinder implant neck taper and implant end fillet for optimal biomechanical properties: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Biomech 2008;41:1124-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.12.013
  19. Tarica DY, Alvarado VM, Truong ST. Survey of United States dental schools on cementation protocols for implant crown restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:68-79.
  20. Aung SSMP, Takagaki T, Lyann SK, Ikeda M, Inokoshi M, Sadr A, Nikaido T, Tagami J. Effects of alumina-blasting pressure on the bonding to super/ultra-translucent zirconia. Dent Mater 2019;35:730-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.02.025
  21. Coelho PG, Silva NR, Bonfante EA, Guess PC, Rekow ED, Thompson VP. Fatigue testing of two porcelain-zirconia all-ceramic crown systems. Dent Mater 2009;25:1122-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.03.009
  22. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02453.x
  23. Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Dimension of the periimplant mucosa. Biological width revisited. J Clin Periodontol 1996;23:971-3. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1996.tb00520.x
  24. Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Ericsson I, Marinello CP, Liljenberg B, Thomsen P. The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991;2:81-90. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1991.020206.x
  25. Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Jonsson K, Ericsson I. The topography of the vascular systems in the periodontal and peri-implant tissues in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 1994;21:189-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1994.tb00302.x
  26. Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Maslova N, Linkeviciene L, Peciuliene V, Linkevicius T. Clinical factors influencing removal of the cement excess in implant-supported restorations. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:771-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12170
  27. Kim M, Lee DH. Burnishing effect on marginal misfit of implant-supported screw-and-cement retained prostheses: a case report. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2020;58:239-43. https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2020.58.3.239
  28. Lee JH, Yang SE, Lee J, Lee SY. Influence of Luting materials and methods and the restoration surface on the amount of cement remnants in implant restorations. J Oral Implantol 2019;45:301-7. https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-18-00283
  29. Galvan G, Kois JC, Chaiyabutr Y, Kois D. Cemented implant restoration: A technique for minimizing adverse biologic consequences. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:482-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.10.017
  30. Wadhwani C, Pineyro A. Technique for controlling the cement for an implant crown. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:57-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60102-5
  31. Hess TA. A technique to eliminate subgingival cement adhesion to implant abutments by using polytetrafluoroethylene tape. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:365-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.06.026
  32. Seo CW, Seo JM. A technique for minimizing subgingival residual cement by using rubber dam for cement-retained implant crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:327-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.024
  33. Korsch M, Robra BP, Walther W. Predictors of excess cement and tissue response to fixed implant-supported dentures after cementation. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:e45-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12122