The effect of different cementation techniques on the amount of remaining excess cement depending on the crown-abutment margin level

Aleksandar  Djordjević; Jelena Todić; Sanja Simić; Dragoslav Lazić; Zoran  Vlahović; Ljiljana  Šubarić

doi:10.2298/VSP221110016D

Aleksandar Djordjević University of Priština/Kosovska Mitrovica, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Dentistry, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia
Jelena Todić University of Priština/Kosovska Mitrovica, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Dentistry, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia
Sanja Simić University of Priština/Kosovska Mitrovica, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Dentistry, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia
Dragoslav Lazić University of Priština/Kosovska Mitrovica, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Dentistry, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia
Zoran Vlahović University of Priština/Kosovska Mitrovica, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Dentistry, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia
Ljiljana Šubarić University of Priština/Kosovska Mitrovica, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Dentistry, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP221110016D

Keywords: dental cements, dental implantation, denture, partial, fixed, in vitro techniques, methods

Abstract

Background/Aim. One of the disadvantages of the ce-ment-retained fixed implant-supported restorations is the residual cement, which is found on the superstructure after the cementation procedure and has been identified as a risk factor for the occurrence of peri-implantitis. The aim of the study was to examine the influence of cementation tech-niques on the amount of residual cement at different levels of demarcation of the abutment in relation to the gingiva in the process of cementing restorations on implants. Meth-ods. The research was conducted in in vitro conditions on casts obtained after implant placement. The abutments are milled at the level of the gingiva, 1.5 mm subgingivally and 3 mm subgingivally. Zirconium dioxide ceramic restorations were cemented using a standard cementation technique, a cementation technique using Teflon tape, and a precemen-tation method using a silicone replica of the abutment and a 3D printed replica. The amount of residual cement was measured by photograph analysis. Adobe Photoshop was used for software analysis of photographs and determina-tion of cement surface. Statistical data processing was per-formed in the SPSS program, and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used for data analysis. Results. A comparative analysis of the effectiveness of cementation techniques at the gingi-val margin level revealed a statistically significant difference in the amount of residual cement in relation to the cementa-tion technique (p < 0.001). Analyzing the cementation tech-nique effectiveness at the level of the finish line, 1.5 mm subgingivally, it was established that there was a statistically significant difference in the amount of residual cement compared to the cementation technique (p = 0.001). Com-paring the effectiveness of cementation techniques at the 3 mm subgingival finish line level, it was established that there was a statistically significant difference in the amount of re-sidual cement compared to the cementation technique (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Subgingival localization significant-ly affects the amount of residual cement in fixed prosthetic restorations on implants. Applying precementation tech-niques significantly reduces the amount of residual cement.

Author Biography

Aleksandar Djordjević, University of Priština/Kosovska Mitrovica, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Dentistry, Kosovska Mitrovica, Serbia

Broj telefona 0645337413

References

1. Wittneben JG, Joda T, Weber HP, Brägger U. Screw retained vs. cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Periodontol 2000 2017; 73(1): 141–51.

2. Lee A, Okayasu K, Wang HL. Screw- versus cement-retained implant restorations: Current concepts. Implant Dent 2010; 19(1): 8–15.

3. Ma S, Fenton A. Screw- versus cement-retained implant prostheses: a systematic review of prosthodontic maintenance and complications. Int J Prosthodont 2015; 28(2): 127–45.

4. Pesce P, Canullo L, Grusovin MG, de Bruyn H, Cosyn J, Pera P. Systematic review of some prosthetic risk factors for periimplantitis. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114(3): 346–50.

5. Korsch M, Obst U, Walther W. Cement-associated peri-implantitis: a retrospective clinical observational study of fixed implant-supported restorations using a methacrylate cement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25(7): 797–802.

6. Quaranta A, Lim ZW, Tang J, Perrotti V, Leichter J. The Impact of Residual Subgingival Cement on Biological Complications Around Dental Implants: A Systematic Review. Implant Dent 2017; 26(3): 465–74.

7. Staubli N, Walter C, Schmidt JC, Weiger R, Zitzmann NU. Excess cement and the risk of peri-implant disease - a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28(10): 1278–90.

8. Wilson TG Jr. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study. J Periodontol 2009; 80(9): 1388–92.

9. Korsch M, Walther W, Bartols A. Cement-associated peri-implant mucositis. A 1-year follow-up after excess cement removal on the peri-implant tissue of dental implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19(3): 523–9.

10. Linkevicius T. How Abutment Margin Design Influences Cement Flow: Abutment Selection and Cement Margin Site. In: Wadhwani C, editor. Cementation in Dental Implantology: An Evidence-Based Guide. 2015^th ed. Berlin: Springer; 2015. p. 101–12.

11. Gehrke P, Bleuel K, Fischer C, Sader R. Influence of margin location and luting material on the amount of undetected cement excess on CAD/CAM implant abutments and cement-retained zirconia crowns: an in-vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2019; 19(1): 111.

12. Belser UC, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP, Taylor TD. Prosthetic management of the partially dentate patient with fixed implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11(Suppl 1): 126–45.

13. Andersson B, Odman P, Lindvall AM, Brånemark PI. Cemented single crowns on osseointegrated implants after 5 years: results from a prospective study on CeraOne. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11(3): 212–8.

14. Canullo L, Cocchetto R, Marinotti F, Oltra DP, Diago MP, Loi I. Clinical evaluation of an improved cementation technique for implant-supported restorations: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27(12): 1492–9.

15. Hess TA. A technique to eliminate subgingival cement adhesion to implant abutments by using polytetrafluoroethylene tape. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112(2): 365–8.

16. Jagathpal AJ, Vally ZI, Sykes LM, du Toit J. Comparison of excess cement around implant crown margins by using 3 extraoral cementation techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 126(1): 95–101.

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(12): 1379–84.

18. Sancho-Puchades M, Crameri D, Özcan M, Sailer I, Jung RE, Hämmerle CHF, et al. The influence of the emergence profile on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant reconstructions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28(12): 1515–22.

19. 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(1): 43–7.

20. Wadhwani C, Hess T, Piñeyro A, Opler R, Chung KH. Cement application techniques in luting implant-supported crowns: a quantitative and qualitative survey. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27(4): 859–64.

21. Andrijauskas P, Zukauskas S, Alkimavicius J, Peciuliene V, Linkevicius T. Comparing effectiveness of rubber dam and gingival displacement cord with copy abutment in reducing residual cement in cement-retained implant crowns: A crossover RCT. Clin Oral Implants Res 2021; 32(5): 549–58.