Egle Vindasiute-Narbute, Algirdas Puisys, Rolandas Andrijauskas, Gaivile Pileicikiene, Dominyka Malinauskaite, Tomas Linkevicius
{"title":"水泥类型对氧化锆种植体修复体去除质量的影响","authors":"Egle Vindasiute-Narbute, Algirdas Puisys, Rolandas Andrijauskas, Gaivile Pileicikiene, Dominyka Malinauskaite, Tomas Linkevicius","doi":"10.11607/ijp.7088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess excess cement removal after cementation of implant-supported cementretained restorations using different cements.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A dental model with soft tissue imitation, 20 individual zirconium oxide abutments, and 20 zirconium oxide crowns were fabricated. Half of the restorations were cemented using resin cement (RX) and the other half with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (GC). After cement cleaning, each crown-abutment unit was removed from the model, photographed, and analyzed from 4 surfaces, resulting in a final sample size of 80 measurements. Radiographic examination and the computerized planimetric method in Adobe Photoshop were used to determine the amount of the cement left and to evaluate the ratio between the area of cement residue and the whole crown-abutment surface. The significance was set to .05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GC resulted in 7.4% more cement residue on all surfaces (P < .05) than RX. The P value on three of the surfaces (all except mesial) was < .05, meaning that the data were statistically significantly different between groups and surfaces. Absolute removal of the cement was impossible in all cases (100%), and in 95% of the cases, cement remnants could not be detected radiographically.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>More undetected cement remains when using resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. It was impossible to remove excess of both types of cements completely. Most of the cement remains on the distal surface. Radiographic examination could not be considered as a reliable method to identify excess cement.</p>","PeriodicalId":50292,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Prosthodontics","volume":"36 3","pages":"315–322"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influence of Cement Type on its Quality of Removal from Zirconium Oxide Implant-Supported Restorations\",\"authors\":\"Egle Vindasiute-Narbute, Algirdas Puisys, Rolandas Andrijauskas, Gaivile Pileicikiene, Dominyka Malinauskaite, Tomas Linkevicius\",\"doi\":\"10.11607/ijp.7088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess excess cement removal after cementation of implant-supported cementretained restorations using different cements.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A dental model with soft tissue imitation, 20 individual zirconium oxide abutments, and 20 zirconium oxide crowns were fabricated. Half of the restorations were cemented using resin cement (RX) and the other half with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (GC). After cement cleaning, each crown-abutment unit was removed from the model, photographed, and analyzed from 4 surfaces, resulting in a final sample size of 80 measurements. Radiographic examination and the computerized planimetric method in Adobe Photoshop were used to determine the amount of the cement left and to evaluate the ratio between the area of cement residue and the whole crown-abutment surface. The significance was set to .05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GC resulted in 7.4% more cement residue on all surfaces (P < .05) than RX. The P value on three of the surfaces (all except mesial) was < .05, meaning that the data were statistically significantly different between groups and surfaces. Absolute removal of the cement was impossible in all cases (100%), and in 95% of the cases, cement remnants could not be detected radiographically.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>More undetected cement remains when using resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. It was impossible to remove excess of both types of cements completely. Most of the cement remains on the distal surface. Radiographic examination could not be considered as a reliable method to identify excess cement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50292,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Prosthodontics\",\"volume\":\"36 3\",\"pages\":\"315–322\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Prosthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.7088\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.7088","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Influence of Cement Type on its Quality of Removal from Zirconium Oxide Implant-Supported Restorations
Purpose: To assess excess cement removal after cementation of implant-supported cementretained restorations using different cements.
Materials and methods: A dental model with soft tissue imitation, 20 individual zirconium oxide abutments, and 20 zirconium oxide crowns were fabricated. Half of the restorations were cemented using resin cement (RX) and the other half with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (GC). After cement cleaning, each crown-abutment unit was removed from the model, photographed, and analyzed from 4 surfaces, resulting in a final sample size of 80 measurements. Radiographic examination and the computerized planimetric method in Adobe Photoshop were used to determine the amount of the cement left and to evaluate the ratio between the area of cement residue and the whole crown-abutment surface. The significance was set to .05.
Results: GC resulted in 7.4% more cement residue on all surfaces (P < .05) than RX. The P value on three of the surfaces (all except mesial) was < .05, meaning that the data were statistically significantly different between groups and surfaces. Absolute removal of the cement was impossible in all cases (100%), and in 95% of the cases, cement remnants could not be detected radiographically.
Conclusion: More undetected cement remains when using resin-modified glass-ionomer cement. It was impossible to remove excess of both types of cements completely. Most of the cement remains on the distal surface. Radiographic examination could not be considered as a reliable method to identify excess cement.
期刊介绍:
Official Journal of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO), the International College of Prosthodontists (ICP), the German Society of Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science (DGPro), and the Italian Academy of Prosthetic Dentistry (AIOP)
Prosthodontics demands a clinical research emphasis on patient- and dentist-mediated concerns in the management of oral rehabilitation needs. It is about making and implementing the best clinical decisions to enhance patients'' quality of life via applied biologic architecture - a role that far exceeds that of traditional prosthetic dentistry, with its emphasis on materials and techniques. The International Journal of Prosthodontics is dedicated to exploring and developing this conceptual shift in the role of today''s prosthodontist, clinician, and educator alike. The editorial board is composed of a distinguished team of leading international scholars.