Evaluation of the marginal excess cement and retention force of implant-supported zirconia crowns with various vent designs under different cement application patterns

The distribution of marginal excess cement of implant-supported vented and non-vented zirconia crowns with and without cleaning procedures

PURPOSE

To investigate the distribution of marginal excess cement in vented and non-vented crowns and evaluate the effect of clinical cleaning procedures on the reduction of excess cement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty models with implant analogs in the position of the right maxillary first molar were divided into four groups (n = 10/group, vented/non-vented crowns with or without cleaning procedures). The abutment finish lines were placed 1 mm below the artificial gingiva buccally, mesially, and distally and at the gingival level palatally. A standardized amount (20 mg) of resin cement was applied in a thin layer to the intaglio surface of zirconia vented and non-vented crowns. The excess cement was removed by a dental explorer in groups with cleaning procedures. The distribution (area and depth) of the marginal excess cement was measured at each quadrant (buccal, mesial, palatal, and distal) for all study samples. The data were analyzed using descriptive and analytical statistics (ɑ = 0.05).

RESULTS

The area and depth values of the excess cement in each quadrant in the vented group were significantly smaller than that in the non-vented group, both with and without cleaning (p < 0.001). Cleaning procedures significantly reduced the area of excess cement in both vented and non-vented groups (all, p < 0.001 except for p < 0.05 at the buccal aspect of the vented group). The depth of excess cement in the vented group was significantly decreased with cleaning in the buccal quadrant compared with that without cleaning (p < 0.01). However, the depth of excess cement of the non-vented group was significantly increased with cleaning in all quadrants compared with that without cleaning (all, p < 0.001 except for p < 0.05 at the distal aspect).

CONCLUSIONS

Crown venting significantly reduced the area and depth of the marginal excess cement in vitro. Cleaning procedure with a dental explorer significantly reduced the area of marginal excess cement in vitro; however, the excess cement can be pushed deeper in the non-vented group.

How can excess residual cement be reduced in implant-supported restorations?: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of different cements and cementation techniques used in implant-supported restorations and the application of various vent modifications and extraoral replica techniques on the amount of overflowing cement in cemented systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this study, three different abutment designs were used as fully closed, occlusal vented, and occlusal + proximal vented. An extraoral replica was produced by milling the CAD/CAM ceramic block. The number of groups with and without replicas was determined as six (n = 10). For the cementation procedures, three different cements were tested: dual-cure resin, eugenol-free zinc oxide, and polycarboxylate cements. Cobalt-chromium superstructures to be cemented to the implant analog-abutment complex were produced by direct metal laser sintering method. Twenty-four hours after the cementation process, residual cement were measered with Micro-CT. In comparisons between groups, ANOVA test was used for normally distributed variables and Kruskall-Wallis H test was used for non-normally distributed variables at a significance level of p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The difference in residual cement volumes between the groups in terms of both cementation techniques (whether or not to use an extraoral replica and different vent desings) and cement types was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). There was significantly less residual cement in all groups that used extraoral replicas than those that did not. As for the cement types, the most residual cement occurred in the resin cement.

CONCLUSION

The use of extraoral replicas and vent designs on the abutment significantly reduces the amount of residual cement. Regardless of the cementation technique, the type of cement used affects the amount of excess cement.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

To reduce residual cement, both the type of cement and the cementation technique used must be considered.

Esthetic Evaluation and Acceptability of Different Hole Designs on Implant Crowns from the Perspective of Patients and Dentists in China

PURPOSE

Abutment access hole on dental implant crowns may facilitate crown retrieval and reduce cement overflow but present esthetic obstacle for patients. This study aimed to investigate the esthetic evaluation and acceptability of implant crowns with different hole designs from the perspective of patients and dentists.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Anterior and posterior implant zirconia crowns were fabricated into three types: no hole (NH), 1 mm micro hole (MH), and 2.5 mm regular hole (RH). The NH crown was set as the control, and the anterior and posterior crowns with MH and RH were evaluated. The subjects, who were recruited randomly, were comprised of lay patients (n=60) and professional dentists (n=30). All subjects were invited to evaluate the esthetic performance of MH and RH crowns on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), rate them from 0 to 10, state their acceptability of these crowns, and label them as acceptable and unacceptable.

RESULTS

The ANOVA analysis of the VAS esthetic evaluation showed that the size of the hole, the position of the teeth, and the professional background of the subject significantly and independently affected esthetic perception. Crowns with MH in the posterior position had higher esthetic scores and acceptability compared with crowns with RH in the anterior position, and dentists tended to show higher acceptance and better esthetic rating for crowns with holes compared with lay patients.

CONCLUSION

The hypothesis that patients and dentists hold similar esthetic evaluations or acceptability towards implant crown hole designs was rejected. Lay patients had a lower tolerance for venting holes than dentists. Crowns with 1 mm micro holes were more recommendable than crowns with regular abutment access holes from the point of view of satisfying patients' esthetic needs.