Abutment margin levels and residual cement occurrence in cement‐retained implant restorations: An observational study
- 3 November 2022
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Wiley in Clinical Oral Implants Research
- Vol. 34 (1) , 33-41
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate the association between different vertical levels of the abutment margin and residual cement prevalence in cement‐retained implant restorations with customized abutments.Methods: One hundred and nine single‐unit cement‐retained implant restorations with a screw‐access channel were included. The crowns were intraorally cemented on the abutments, and excess cement was removed. The abutment–crown complex was unscrewed, and the abutment–crown complex and peri‐implant tissue were photographed. Residual cement presence was recorded by dividing the abutment–crown complex and peri‐implant tissue into four quadrants: mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual. The prevalence of residual cement was compared according to the height of the custom abutment margin of the corresponding quadrant. A multilevel model was used for statistical analysis (α = .05).Results: Cement remnants were discovered on 72.48% of the dental implants. When the restoration quadrants were compared, cement remnants were present on 51.38%, 39.45%, 20.18%, and 17.43% of the mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual surfaces, respectively (p < .01). Regarding the abutment margin level, cement residues were found in 60.22% and 61.4% of the 0.5 mm subgingival and ≥1 mm subgingival margin groups, respectively, which were significantly more than those in the supragingival (23.65%) and equigingival (26.59%) margin groups (p < .01). After adjustment for confounding factors, the adjusted odds ratio (with 95% confidence interval) for residual cement in the subgingival margin groups was 3.664 (1.71, 7.852) when compared to the supragingival and equigingival margin groups.Conclusions: The risk of residual cement occurrence was 3.66‐fold higher with a subgingival abutment margin than with supragingival and equigingival abutment margins.Keywords
Funding Information
- Seoul National University (860‐20200106)
- National Research Foundation of Korea (2021R1F1A106313711)
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Incidence of undetected cement on CAD/CAM monolithic zirconia crowns and customized CAD/CAM implant abutments. A prospective case seriesClinical Oral Implants Research, 2016
- Undetected residual cement on standard or individualized all‐ceramic abutments with cemented zirconia single crowns – a prospective randomized pilot trialClinical Oral Implants Research, 2015
- Cement-Associated Signs of Inflammation: Retrospective Analysis of the Effect of Excess Cement on Peri-implant TissueThe International Journal of Prosthodontics, 2015
- Clinical Factors Influencing Removal of the Cement Excess in Implant‐Supported RestorationsClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 2013
- Cement‐associated peri‐implantitis: a retrospective clinical observational study of fixed implant‐supported restorations using a methacrylate cementClinical Oral Implants Research, 2013
- Zirconia Abutments for Single-Tooth Implants—Rationale and Clinical GuidelinesJournal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 2009
- The Positive Relationship Between Excess Cement and Peri‐Implant Disease: A Prospective Clinical Endoscopic StudyJournal of Periodontology, 2009
- Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studiesBMJ, 2007
- Screw versus cemented implant supported restorationsBritish Dental Journal, 2006
- Biologic Width Around Titanium Implants. A Histometric Analysis of the Implanto‐Gingival Junction Around Unloaded and Loaded Nonsubmerged Implants in the Canine MandibleJournal of Periodontology, 1997