Influence of Luting Materials and Methods and the Restoration Surface on the Amount of Cement Remnants in Implant Restorations
This study aimed to investigate the effects of the luting methods on the amount of cement remnants in implant restorations and to determine the restoration surface with the maximum amount of residual cement. Forty abutments and crowns were divided into 4 groups as follows: TB group, luting with zinc oxide-eugenol cement; TBV group, luting with zinc oxide-eugenol cement after application of a separating agent over the transmucosal area of the abutment; PI group, luting with methacrylate cement; and PIV group, luting with methacrylate cement after application of a separating agent. After cementation, all the quadrants of the specimens were photographed, and the amount and location of the cement remnants were statistically analyzed (P ≤ .05). The amount of cement remnants was significantly smaller in the groups with a separating agent. The type of luting material did not significantly affect the results. Cement remnants were more abundant on the mesial and distal sides than on the buccal and lingual sides of the restoration.
Figure 1. Implant restoration fabricated to determine the influence of luting materials and methods on the amount of cement remnants in implant restorations. (a) Customized titanium abutment with the master cast. (b) Design of a laser-sintered cobalt-chromium crown using computer-aided design software. (c) Definitive cobalt-chromium crown fabricated using the laser-sintering technique. Figure 2. Schematic drawing of a customized abutment fabricated to determine the influence of luting materials and methods on the amount of cement remnants in implant restorations. *Transmucosal area of the abutment (area coated with a separating agent). Figure 3. Photographed cement remnants on the mesial quadrant of the abutment–crown–jig complex: the position of the jig was set at an angle such that only its front surface was visible, and it was photographed perpendicularly at a constant magnification of 3:1. Figure 4. Photographed cement remnants on the master cast. Two oblique lines are crossing the midpoint of the implant based on the internal hexagon of the laboratory analog. Cement remnants on the distal quadrant have been marked using the “lasso tool” in image analyzing software. The numerical value of the pixels of the marked area is displayed using the histogram option.
Figure 5. Comparison of the amount of cement remnants (pixels) between the different groups according to the luting material and method. Groups TB and PI exhibit significantly more cement remnants than groups TBV and PIV. Group TB: luting with zinc oxide-eugenol (ZOE) cement; group TBV: luting with ZOE cement after the application of a separating agent (petroleum jelly) over the transmucosal area of the abutment; group PI: luting with methacrylate (MA) cement; group PIV: luting with MA cement after the application of a separating agent over the transmucosal area of the abutment. *P < .05. Figure 6. Comparison of the total amount of cement remnants (pixels) according to the restoration surface (quadrants). The mesial and distal quadrants demonstrate significantly more cement remnants than lingual and buccal quadrants. The total amount of cement remnants (eg, mesial side) = amount of cement remnants on the crown-abutment complex (eg, mesial side) + amount of cement remnants on the master cast (eg, mesial side). *P < .05.
Contributor Notes