Premium
Incidence of undetected cement on CAD / CAM monolithic zirconia crowns and customized CAD / CAM implant abutments. A prospective case series
Author(s) -
Wasiluk Grzegorz,
Chomik Ewa,
Gehrke Peter,
Pietruska Małgorzata,
Skurska Anna,
Pietruski Jan
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.12879
Subject(s) - abutment , crown (dentistry) , cement , dentistry , cementation (geology) , dental abutments , materials science , molar , cubic zirconia , implant , luting agent , retrievability , dental cement , titanium , medicine , composite material , bond strength , adhesive , ceramic , engineering , metallurgy , surgery , layer (electronics) , computer science , structural engineering , precision and recall , machine learning
Objective The aim of this study was to assess the frequency of cement residues after cementation of CAD / CAM monolithic zirconia crowns on customized CAD / CAM titanium abutments. Materials and methods Sixty premolars and molars were restored on Astra Tech Osseospeed TX ™ implants using single monolithic zirconia crowns fixed on two types of custom‐made abutments: Atlantis ™ titanium or Atlantis ™ Gold Hue. Occlusal openings providing access to the abutment screws were designed for retrievability of the crown/abutment connection. After fixation with glass ionomer cement, the crown/abutment units were unscrewed to evaluate the presence of residual cement. Dichotomous assessment of the presence or absence of cement at the crown/abutment unit and peri‐implant tissues was performed. Results Clinically undetected cement excess was visible on 44 of 60 restorations (73.3%). There was no interdependency between residual cement presence and implant location or diameter. However, a dependency between the presence of residual cement and the aspect of the abutment/crown connection could be noted. The majority of the residues were observed on the distal (17.9%) and mesial (15%) aspects. While on the palatal/lingual aspect, the cement was visible in 8.8%; only 3.4% of all surfaces displayed cement residues. Conclusions Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that the use of customized CAD / CAM abutments do not guarantee avoidance of subgingival cement residues after crown cementation.