The influence of the cementation margin position on the amount of undetected cement. A prospective clinical study

Authors


Corresponding author:

Tomas Linkevicius, DDS, Dip Pros, PhD

Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University,

Zalgirio str. 115/117, LT- 08217, Vilnius, Lithuania

Tel.: +370 687 72840

fax: +370 527 60725

e-mail: linktomo@gmail.com

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the amount of undetected cement after cementation and cleaning of implant-supported restorations.

Materials and methods

Fifty three patients were treated with 53 single implant-supported metal-ceramic restorations. The subgingival location of the margin of each implant was measured with a periodontal probe mesially, distally, buccaly, and lingually, resulting in 212 measurements. The data were divided into four groups: equally with tissue level (14 samples), 1 mm subgingivally (56), 2 mm (74), and 3 mm (68) below tissues contour. Metal-ceramic restorations were fabricated with occlusal openings and cemented on standard abutments with resin-reinforced glass-ionomer. After cleaning, a radiograph was taken to assess if all cement had been removed. Then the abutment/crown unit was unscrewed for evaluation. All quadrants of the specimens and peri-implant tissues were photographed and analyzed with Adobe Photoshop. Two proportions were calculated: (1) the relation between the cement remnants area and the total area of the abutment/restoration and (2) the relation between the cement remnants and the total area of implant soft tissue contour. Significance set to 0.05.

Results

Excess on the crown groups: 1 (0.002 ± 0.001); 2 (0.024 ± 0.005); 3 (0.036 ± 0.004); 4 (0.055 ± 0.007). Undetected excess increased when the margin was located deeper subgingivally (P = 0.000), significant difference was found among all groups (P ≤ 0.05). Remnants in the soft tissue groups: 1 (0.014 ± 0.006); 2 (0.052 ± 0.011); 3 (0.057 ± 0.009); 4 (0.071 ± 0.012). The increase of the remnants was statistically reliable (P = 0.0045), significant difference was found between group 1 and 2 (P ≤ 0.05). Radiographic evaluation showed that cement remnants mesially were visible in four cases of 53 or 7.5%, and in six cases of 53 distally (11.3%).

Conclusions

The deeper the position of the margin, the greater amount of undetected cement was discovered. Dental radiographs should not be considered as a reliable method for cement excess evaluation.

Ancillary