Residual Cement Excess of Composite Versus Glass Ionomer Cement in Implant-Supported Single Crowns After Different Intraoral Exposure Times-A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
MedicinaResumo original em inglês
O que aconteceu
To evaluate the frequency and quantity of residual cement after cementation of monolithic zirconia crowns with glass ionomer or resin composite cement on customized ceramic abutments, following different intraoral retention times. The influence of margin location, quadrant and implant region was also assessed.
40 patients received cemented monolithic single crowns on customized ceramic abutments of bone-level implants. They were randomly assigned to four groups: GC0 (glass ionomer, immediate removal), GC4 (glass ionomer, 4 weeks), RC0 (resin composite, immediate), and RC4 (resin composite, 4 weeks). Each crown was fabricated with an occlusal access opening to enable abutment-crown removal. Cementation and excess removal were performed by one experienced clinician. After the specified time, suprastructures were unscrewed and examined for residual cement. Image analysis (GIMP) calculated the ratio of cement-covered to total abutment and peri-implant tissue surface.
German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00004158; DRKS00011743).
O que encontraram
Residual cement was detected on 39/40 abutments (97.5%), affecting 137/160 surfaces (85.6%). Median ratios were 0.020 (Q1 0.015, Q3 0.033) in GC0, 0.042 (0.014, 0.087) in GC4, 0.078 (0.054, 0.114) in RC0, and 0.130 (0.074, 0.195) in RC4. Resin cement left significantly more residues than glass ionomer (p < 0.001). Trends were also observed for margin location and implant region. Radiographs were insufficient to detect interproximal cement.
Por que isso importa
Both cements left detectable residues. Resin cement produced significantly larger areas, while retention time did not reduce cement quantity. Glass ionomer appears preferable for implant-supported single crowns.
Resumo publicado sob licença CC BY. A tradução para o português ainda não chegou a este estudo.
O estudo original
Residual Cement Excess of Composite Versus Glass Ionomer Cement in Implant-Supported Single Crowns After Different Intraoral Exposure Times-A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
Maria Weinreuter, Kevin Richter, Thomas Stober, Peter Rammelsberg, Stefanie Kappel
Descritores MeSH
- Composite Resins
- Glass Ionomer Cements
- Crowns
- Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
- Dental Implants, Single-Tooth
- Dental Cements
- Middle Aged
- Time Factors
- Zirconium
- Dental Abutments
Estudos relacionados
- A 3-Year Split-Mouth Randomized Non-Inferiority Controlled Trial Comparing Cement-Retained Monolithic CAD-CAM Zirconia and Lithium Disilicate Crowns for Single Posterior Implant Restorations
- Clinical performance of paediatric zirconia crowns cemented with two luting agents: A 36-month split-mouth randomised controlled trial
- Clinical evaluation of pediatric zirconia crowns cemented with two luting cements: a 12 months split-mouth randomised controlled trial
- Comparison of Three Luting Cements for Prefabricated Zirconia Crowns in Primary Molar Teeth: a 36-month Randomized Clinical Trial