Premium
The influence of the cementation margin position on the amount of undetected cement. A prospective clinical study
Author(s) -
Linkevicius Tomas,
Vindasiute Egle,
Puisys Algirdas,
Linkeviciene Laura,
Maslova Natalja,
Puriene Alina
Publication year - 2013
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/j.1600-0501.2012.02453.x
Subject(s) - dentistry , cementation (geology) , abutment , crown (dentistry) , implant , cement , dental abutments , medicine , glass ionomer cement , gingival margin , orthodontics , materials science , composite material , surgery , engineering , civil engineering
Objective To evaluate the amount of undetected cement after cementation and cleaning of implant‐supported restorations. Materials and methods Fifty three patients were treated with 53 single implant‐supported metal‐ceramic restorations. The subgingival location of the margin of each implant was measured with a periodontal probe mesially, distally, buccaly, and lingually , resulting in 212 measurements. The data were divided into four groups: equally with tissue level (14 samples), 1 mm subgingivally (56), 2 mm (74), and 3 mm (68) below tissues contour. Metal‐ceramic restorations were fabricated with occlusal openings and cemented on standard abutments with resin‐reinforced glass‐ionomer. After cleaning, a radiograph was taken to assess if all cement had been removed. Then the abutment/crown unit was unscrewed for evaluation. All quadrants of the specimens and peri‐implant tissues were photographed and analyzed with Adobe Photoshop. Two proportions were calculated: (1) the relation between the cement remnants area and the total area of the abutment/restoration and (2) the relation between the cement remnants and the total area of implant soft tissue contour. Significance set to 0.05. Results Excess on the crown groups: 1 (0.002 ± 0.001); 2 (0.024 ± 0.005); 3 (0.036 ± 0.004); 4 (0.055 ± 0.007). Undetected excess increased when the margin was located deeper subgingivally ( P = 0.000), significant difference was found among all groups ( P ≤ 0.05). Remnants in the soft tissue groups: 1 (0.014 ± 0.006); 2 (0.052 ± 0.011); 3 (0.057 ± 0.009); 4 (0.071 ± 0.012). The increase of the remnants was statistically reliable ( P = 0.0045), significant difference was found between group 1 and 2 ( P ≤ 0.05). Radiographic evaluation showed that cement remnants mesially were visible in four cases of 53 or 7.5%, and in six cases of 53 distally (11.3%). Conclusions The deeper the position of the margin, the greater amount of undetected cement was discovered. Dental radiographs should not be considered as a reliable method for cement excess evaluation.