| Autor: |
Vindasiute-Narbute, Egle, Puisys, Algirdas, Andrijauskas, Rolandas, Pileicikiene, Gaivile, Malinauskaite, Dominyka, Linkevicius, Tomas |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
International Journal of Prosthodontics; May/Jun2023, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p315-322, 8p |
| Abstrakt: |
To assess excess cement removal after cementation of implant-supported cement-retained restorations with different cements. Material and Methods: A dental model with imitation soft tissue, 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 abutment-crown unit was removed from the model, photographed, and analyzed on four 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 cement left and evaluate the ratio between the area of cement residue and all abutment-crown surfaces. 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 surfaces (all except the mesial) was < .05, indicating that the data were statistically significantly different between groups and surfaces. Complete removal of the cement was impossible in all cases (100%), but in 95% of cases, cement remnants could not be detected radiographically. Conclusions: More undetected cement remains when using GC. It was impossible to remove excess of both types of cement completely. Most of the cement remnants were located on the distal surface. Radiographic examination could not be considered as a reliable method to identify excess cement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Databáze: |
Complementary Index |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
