Uticaj različitih tehnika cementiranja na količinu rezidualnog cementa u zavisnosti od lokalizacije margine krunica-nosač

  • 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
Ključne reči: stomatološki cementi, stomatološka implantacija, zubna proteza, parcijalna, fiksna, in vitro, metodi

Sažetak


Uvod/Cilj. Jedan od nedostataka cementom fiksiranih nadoknada na implantatima predstavlja rezidualni cement, koji se nalazi na suprastrukturi nakon postupka cementiranja i označen je kao faktor rizika od pojave periimplantitisa. Cilj rada bio je da se ispita uticaj tehnika cementiranja na količinu rezidualnog cementa na različitim nivoima demarkacije nosača (abutment) u odnosu na gingivu u postupku cementiranja nadoknada na implantatima. Metode. Istraživanje je sprovedeno u in vitro uslovima na radnim modelima dobijenim nakon ugradnje implantata. Nosači su frezovani u nivou gingive, subgingivalno 1.5 mm i subgingivalno 3 mm. Nadoknade od cirkonijum dioksid keramike cementirane su standardnom tehnikom cementiranja, tehnikom cementiranja upotrebom teflonske trake i metodom precementiranja, upotrebom silikonske replike nosača i 3D štampane replike. Merenje količine rezidualnog cementa vršeno je analizom fotografije. Za potrebe softverske analize fotografije i određivanja površine cementa korišćen je program Adobe Photoshop. Statistička obrada podataka rađena je u SPSS programu, a za analizu podataka korišćen je Kruskal-Wallis test. Rezultati. Uporednom analizom efikasnosti tehnika cementiranja na nivou gingivalne margine ustanovljeno je da je postojala statistički značajna razlika u količini zaostalog cementa u odnosu na tehniku cementiranja (p < 0,001). Analizom efikasnosti tehnika cementiranja na nivou demarkacije 1.5 mm, ustanovljeno je da je postojala statistički značajna razlika u količini zaostalog cementa u odnosu na tehniku cementiranja (p = 0,001). Upoređivanjem efikasnosti tehnika cementiranja na nivou demarkacije 3 mm, ustanovljeno je da je postojala statistički značajna razlika u količini zaostalog cementa u odnosu na tehniku cementiranja (p < 0,001). Zaključak. Subgingivalna lokalizacija značajno utiče na količinu rezidualnog cementa kod fiksnih protetskih nadoknada na implantatima. Primenom tehnika precementiranja značajno se smanjuje količina rezidualnog cementa.

Biografija autora

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

Broj telefona 0645337413

Reference

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. 2015th 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.

Objavljeno
2023/09/29
Broj časopisa
Vol. 80 Br. 09 (2023): Vojnosanitetski pregled
Rubrika
Originalni članak