Premium
Peri‐Implantitis Associated with Type of Cement: A Retrospective Analysis of Different Types of Cement and Their Clinical Correlation to the Peri‐Implant Tissue
Author(s) -
Korsch Michael,
Walther Winfried
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
clinical implant dentistry and related research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.338
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1708-8208
pISSN - 1523-0899
DOI - 10.1111/cid.12265
Subject(s) - dentistry , cement , peri implantitis , medicine , implant , cementation (geology) , bleeding on probing , surgery , materials science , metallurgy , periodontitis
Abstract Background The cementation of fixed implant‐supported dental restorations involves the risk of leaving excess cement in the mouth which can promote biofilm formation in the peri‐implant sulcus. As a result, an inflammation may develop. Purpose The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinical effect of two different luting cements on the peri‐implant tissue. Materials and Methods Within the scope of a retrospective clinical follow‐up study, the prosthetic structures of 22 patients with 45 implants were revised. In all cases, a methacrylate cement (Premier Implant Cement [PIC], Premier® Dental Products Company, Plymouth Meeting, PA , USA ) had been used for cementation. In 16 additional patients with 28 implants, the suprastructures were retained with a zinc oxide‐eugenol cement (Temp Bond [ TB ], Kerr Sybron Dental Specialities, Glendora, CA , USA ). These patients were evaluated in the course of routine treatment. Results In both populations, the retention time of the suprastructures was similar ( TB 3.77 years, PIC 4.07 years). In the PIC cases, 62% of all implants had excess cement. In the TB cases, excess cement was not detectable on any of the implants. Bleeding on probing was significantly more frequent on implants cemented with PIC (100% with and 94% without excess cement) than on implants cemented with TB (46%). Pocket suppuration was observed on 89% of the PIC ‐cemented implants with excess cement ( PIC without excess cement 24%), whereas implants with TB were not affected by it at all. The peri‐implant bone loss was significantly greater in the PIC patients (with excess cement 1.37 mm, without excess cement 0.41 mm) than it was in the TB patients (0.07 mm). Conclusion The frequency of undetected excess cement depends essentially on the type of cement used. Cements that tend to leave more undetected excess have a higher prevalence for peri‐implant inflammation and cause a more severe peri‐implant bone loss.