Incidence of undetected cement on CAD/CAM monolithic zirconia crowns and customized CAD/CAM implant abutments. A prospective case series
- 17 May 2016
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Clinical Oral Implants Research
- Vol. 28 (7), 774-778
- https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12879
Abstract
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. 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. 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. 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.Keywords
Funding Information
- Dental - Medical Clinic MED-ORAL in Rumia, Poland
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Cemented and screw‐retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication ratesClinical Oral Implants Research, 2012
- Does residual cement around implant‐supported restorations cause peri‐implant disease? A retrospective case analysisClinical Oral Implants Research, 2012
- The influence of the cementation margin position on the amount of undetected cement. A prospective clinical studyClinical Oral Implants Research, 2012
- The influence of margin location on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant restorationsClinical Oral Implants Research, 2011
- Clinician- and patient-reported long-term evaluation of screw- and cement-retained implant restorations: a 5-year prospective studyClinical Oral Investigations, 2010
- The Positive Relationship Between Excess Cement and Peri‐Implant Disease: A Prospective Clinical Endoscopic StudyThe Journal of Periodontology, 2009
- Peri‐implantitis in partially edentulous patients: association with inadequate plaque controlClinical Oral Implants Research, 2009
- Designing abutments for cement retained implant supported restorationsBritish Dental Journal, 2006
- Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: Achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistryThe Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 1997
- The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: The Toronto study. Part II: The prosthetic resultsThe Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 1990