Cementation in Implant Supported Fixed Prostheses

Year 2018, , 71 - 80, 01.06.2018

Neşet Volkan Asar Emine Ayça Kırman

https://doi.org/10.21306/jids.2018.164

Abstract

Contemporarily, implant supported applications are one of the commonly used treatment options in order to replace the missing teeth. The restorations used in implant supported fixed prostheses have two types, such as cement-retained and screw-retained restorations. Since 1990’s, as the implant manufacturer’s has introduced abutments that are compatible with the cement-retained restorations, these restorations are used more than the screw-retained restorations. Obtaining retention in cement-retained restoration plays significant role in the long-term service of the implant supported prostheses. Luting agents are dental materials that provide retention of the restoration temporarily or permanently. Although these materials are used for both the cementation of tooth and implant supported fixed restorations, there are somennm differences between them in terms of the luting agent selection and cementation principles. It is of utmost importance that clinician should be aware of these differences and consider them important during cementation in order to provide long-term success without any biological and mechanical complications. Therefore, the purpose of our study is to provide contemporary and comprehensive knowledge about the luting agents and cementation procedures of implant supported fixed prostheses

Keywords

Implant, Fixed prosthesis, Cements, Cementation

İmplant Destekli Sabit Protezlerde Simantasyon

Abstract

Günümüzde implant destekli sabit protezler eksik dişlerin yerine koyulması için yaygın olarak uygulanan tedavi seçeneklerindendir. İmplant destekli sabit protezlerde uygulanan restorasyonlar, siman ve vida retansiyonlu olmak üzere iki tiptedir. 1990’lı yıllardan sonra implant firmalarının siman retansiyonlu üst yapılara uygun abutment üretmesi ile bu tip üst yapılar vidalı sistemlere göre daha fazla kullanılmaktadır. Siman retansiyonlu üst yapılarda retansiyonun sağlanması, implant destekli protezlerin uzun süreli fonksiyonunda önemli rol oynar. Yapıştırıcı ajanlar, sabit protezlerin simantasyonunda kullanılan ve restorasyonun retansiyonunu geçici veya daimi olarak sağlayan dental materyallerdir. Bu materyaller, hem diş destekli hem de implant destekli protezlerde rutin olarak kullanılmasına rağmen her iki protez tipi arasında siman seçimi ve simantasyon prensipleri açısından çeşitli farklar mevcuttur. Bu farkların hekim tarafından bilinmesi ve implant destekli sabit protezlerin yapıştırılması esnasında dikkate alınması restorasyonların biyolojik ve mekanik komplikasyonlar oluşmadan başarılı şekilde kullanılmalarını sağlar. Bu nedenle çalışmamızda, implant destekli sabit protez uygulamalarında kullanılan simanlar ve simantasyon prensipleri ile ilgili güncel ve kapsamlı bilgi verilmesi amaçlanmıştır

Keywords

İmplant, Sabit protez, Simanlar, Simantasyon.

References

• 1. Wadhwani C, Schwedhelm ER, Tarica DY, Chung K-H. Implant Luting Cements. In: Wadhwani C, editor. Cementation in Dental Implantology. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag; 2015. 47–83.
• 2. Wittneben J, Millen C, Bragger U. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions-a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29: 84–98.
• 3. Chaar M, Att W, Strub J. Prosthetic outcome of cementretained implant-supported fixed dental restorations: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2011; 38(9): 697–711.
• 4. Misch CE, Bidez MW. Simante Sabit İmplant Protezlerde Protetik Prensipler. In: Kutay Ö, editör. Dental implant protezler. İstanbul, Nobel Tıp Kitapevi; 2009. 414–451.
• 5. Dumbrigue HB, Abanomi AA, Cheng LL. Techniques to minimize excess luting agent in cement-retained implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87(1): 112–114.
• 6. Lemos CAA, De Souza Batista VE, Almeida DADF, Santiago Júnior JF, Verri FR, Pellizzer EP. Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 115(4): 419–427.
• 7. Singh R, Mahesh L, Shukla S. Extra oral cementation of implant prosthesis: A case report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013; 13(4): 627–630.
• 8. Wadhwani C, Piñeyro A. Technique for controlling the cement for an implant crown. J Prosthet Dent 2009; 102(1): 57–8.
• 9. Şen D. Simantasyon Tanımı. In: Şen D, editör. Simantasyon. İstanbul, Quintessence Publishing, Co., Ltd.; 2011. 3–6.
• 10. Şen D. İmplant Üstü Sabit Restorasyonların Simantasyonu. In: Şen D, editör. Simantasyon. İstanbul: Quintessence Publishing,Co.,Ltd.; 2011. 111–117.
• 11. Chee W, Jivraj S. Screw versus cemented implant supported restorations. Br Dent J 2006; 201(8): 501–507.
• 12. Kenneth SH, Reena CG. Cement-retained versus screwretained implant restorations: Achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77: 28–35.
• 13. Michalakis KX, Pissiotis AL, Hirayama H. Cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000; 15(4): 545–549.
• 14. Jorgensen K. The relationship between retention and convergence angle in cemented veneer crowns. Acta Odontogica Scand 1955; 13: 35–40.
• 15. Kenneth H, Reena GC. Cement-retained versus screwretained implant restorations: Achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 77(1): 28–35.
• 16. Michalakis K, Pissiotis AL, Kang K, Hirayama H, Garefis PD, Petridis H. The effect of thermal cycling and air abrasion on cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22(4): 569–574.
• 17. Froum S. Complications Related to Cemented Implant Restoration. In: Froum S, editor. Dental Implant Complications: Etiology, Prevention, and Treatment. Second. Hoboken, New Jersey, Wiley-Blackwell; 2015. 187–208.
• 18. Gültekin P, Gültekin A. Farklı simanların implant üstü kuron protezlerinin tutuculuğuna etkisi. İstanbul Üniversitesi Diş Hekim Derg 2012; 46(1): 43–52.
• 19. Korsch M, Obst U, Walther W. Cement-associated periimplantitis: A retrospective clinical observational study of fixed implant-supported restorations using a methacrylate cement. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25(7): 797–802.
• 20. Wadhwani CP., Raval NC, Ramer N. Peri-implant Disease and Cemented Implant Restorations: A Multifactorial Etiology. In: Wadhwani CP, editor. Cementation in Dental Implantology. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag; 2015. 29–47.
• 21. Wadhwani CPK, Pineyro AF. Implant cementation: clinical problems and solutions. Dent Today 2012; 31(1): 1-11.
• 22. Şen D. Simanların Özellikleri. In: Şen D, editör. Simantasyon. İstanbul, Quintessence Publishing,Co.,Ltd.; 2011. 7–33.
• 23. Mehl C, Harder S, Wolfart M, Kern MA, Wolfart S. Retrievability of implant-retained crowns following cementation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19: 1304–1311.
• 24. Gultekin P, Gultekin BA, Aydin M, Yalcin S. Cement selection for implant-supported crowns fabricated with different luting space settings. J Prosthodont 2013; 22: 112–119.
• 25. Schwarz S, Schröder C, Corcodel N, Hassel AJ, Rammelsberg P. Retrospective comparison of semipermanent and permanent cementation of implant-supported single crowns and FDPs with regard to the incidence of survival and complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012; 14(1): e151–158.
• 26. Kapoor R, Singh K, Kaur S, Arora A. Retention of implant supported metal crowns cemented with different luting agents: a comparative invitro study. J Clin Diagnostic Res 2016; 10(4): 61–64.
• 27. https://www.detax.de/en/shop/produkte/implantlinksemi-Forte.php. 28. Bhoyar A, Jain A, Parlani S, Pandey H. Selection of luting agent in implant retained prosthesis: A review. Int J Oral Heal Dent 2016; 2(1): 19–25.
• 29. Nematollahi F, Beyabanaki E, Alikhasi M. Cement Selection for Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Literature Review. J Prosthodont 2016; 25(7): 599–606.
• 30. Bernal G, Okamura M, Muñoz CA. The effects of abutment taper, length and cement type on resistance to dislodgement of cement-retained implant-supported restorations. J Prosthodont 2003; 12(2): 111–115.
• 31. Squier R, Agar JR, Duncan J, Taylor T. Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001; 16(6): 793–798.
• 32. Pan Y-H, Lin C-K. The Effect of Luting agents on the Retention of Dental Implant-Supported Crowns. Chang Gung Med J 2005; 28(6): 403–410.
• 33. Mansour A, Ercoli C, Graser G, Tallents R, Moss M. Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13(4): 343–348.
• 34. Goldberg M. In vitro and in vivo studies on the toxicity of dental resin components: a review. Clin Oral Investig 2008; 12: 1-8.
• 35. Nicholson JW, Czarnecka B. The biocompatibility of resinmodified glass-ionomer cements for dentistry. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 1702-1708.
• 36. Dmytryk J, Fox S, Moriarty J. The effects of scaling titanium implant surfaces with metal and plastic instruments on cell attachment. J Periodontol 1990; 61(8): 491–496.
• 37. Quirynen M, van der Mei H, Bollen C, Schotte A, Marechal M, Doornbusch G, et al. An in vivo study of the influence of the surface roughness of implants on the microbiology of supra- and subgingival plaque. J Dent Res 1993; 72(9): 1304–1309.
• 38. Agar JR, Cameron SM, Hughbanks JC, Parker MH. Cement removal from restorations luted to titanium abutments with simulated subgingival margins. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78(1): 43–47.
• 39. Wadhwani C, Pineyro A. Implant cementation, step by step. Int Dent Ed 2016; 8(1): 28–31.
• 40. Wadhwani CP., Faber T. Residual excess cement detection. In: Wadhwani CP, editor. Cementation in Dental Implantology. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag. 2015. 83–101.
• 41. Wadhwani C, Hess T, Faber T, Pineyro A, Chen CSK. A Descriptive Study of The Radiographic Density of Implant Restorative Cements. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 103(5): 295– 302.
• 42. Tarica D, Alvarado V, Truong S. Survey of United States dental schools on cementation protocols for implant crown restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 103(2): 68–79.
• 43. Wadhwani C, Hess T, Pineyro A, Chung K-H. Effects of abutment and screw access channel modification on dislodgement of cement-retained implant-supported restorations. Int J Prosthodont 2013; 26(1): 54–56.
• 44. Wadhwani C, Pineyro A, Hess T, Chung K-H. Effect of implant abutment modification on the extrusion of excess cement at the crown-abutment margin for cement-retained implant restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26(6): 1241–1246.
• 45. Wadhwani C, Chung KH. Effect of modifying the screw access channels of zirconia implant abutment on the cement flow pattern and retention of zirconia restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112(1): 45–50.
• 46. Wadhwani C, Hess T, Pineyro A, Opler R, Chung K-H. Cement application techniques in luting implantsupported crowns: a quantitative and qualitative survey. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27(4): 859–864.
• 47. Karaaslan F, Terzi M. Siman artığının neden olduğu periimplantitis:bir olgu sunumu. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekim Fakültesi Derg 2014; 9: 10–14.
• 48. Wilson Jr. TG. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: A prospective clinical endoscopic study. J Periodontol 2009; 80(9): 1388–1392.
• 49. Pauletto N, Lahiffe BJ, Walton JN. Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14(6): 865–868.