Cargando…

A Systematic Review of Cementation Techniques to Minimize Cement Excess in Cement-Retained Implant Restorations

Background: The most used types of retention of implant-supported prostheses are screw-retained or cement-retained restorations. The advantages and disadvantages of both have been identified by various authors over the years. However, cement-retained implant crowns and fixed partial dentures are amo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Reda, Rodolfo, Zanza, Alessio, Cicconetti, Andrea, Bhandi, Shilpa, Guarnieri, Renzo, Testarelli, Luca, Di Nardo, Dario
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8788496/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35076562
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mps5010009
_version_ 1784639578670366720
author Reda, Rodolfo
Zanza, Alessio
Cicconetti, Andrea
Bhandi, Shilpa
Guarnieri, Renzo
Testarelli, Luca
Di Nardo, Dario
author_facet Reda, Rodolfo
Zanza, Alessio
Cicconetti, Andrea
Bhandi, Shilpa
Guarnieri, Renzo
Testarelli, Luca
Di Nardo, Dario
author_sort Reda, Rodolfo
collection PubMed
description Background: The most used types of retention of implant-supported prostheses are screw-retained or cement-retained restorations. The advantages and disadvantages of both have been identified by various authors over the years. However, cement-retained implant crowns and fixed partial dentures are among the most used types of restorations in implant prostheses, due to their aesthetic and clinical advantages. When cemented prostheses are made on implants, the problem of cement residues is important and often associated with biological implant pathologies. The objective of this research was to establish to what extent the techniques to reduce excess cement really affect the volume of cement residues. Materials and Methods: This review was written following the PRISMA statement; a detailed search was carried out in three different electronic databases—PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. The inclusion criteria were prospective clinical studies, with at least 10 participants per group, and with at least 6 months of the follow-up period. Results: There have been many proposals for techniques supposed to reduce the amount of excess cement in the peri-implant sulcus and on the prosthetic components, but of these, which are exceptional in their in vitro capabilities, very few have been clinically validated, and this represents the real limitation and a great lack of knowledge regarding this topic. Three articles met the inclusion criteria, which were analyzed and compared, to obtain the information necessary for the purposes of the systematic review. Discussion: Extraoral cementation can reduce the excess cement, which, after a normal excess removal procedure, is, nevertheless, of such size that it does not affect the possibility of peri-implant pathologies developing. All these studies concluded that a small amount of cement residue is found in the gingival sulcus, and using eugenol-free oxide cements, the residues were only deposited on the metal surfaces, with a better peri-implant tissues health. Conclusion: Despite the limitations of this study, it was possible to carefully analyze these characteristics and obtain valuable suggestions for daily clinical practice. Resinous cements are considered, due to the free monomers present in them, toxic for the soft tissues. The provisional zinc-oxide cements, also eugenol-free, represent the ideal choice. The different grades of retentive forces provided by these cements do not seem to have clinical effects on the decementation of restorations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8788496
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87884962022-01-26 A Systematic Review of Cementation Techniques to Minimize Cement Excess in Cement-Retained Implant Restorations Reda, Rodolfo Zanza, Alessio Cicconetti, Andrea Bhandi, Shilpa Guarnieri, Renzo Testarelli, Luca Di Nardo, Dario Methods Protoc Systematic Review Background: The most used types of retention of implant-supported prostheses are screw-retained or cement-retained restorations. The advantages and disadvantages of both have been identified by various authors over the years. However, cement-retained implant crowns and fixed partial dentures are among the most used types of restorations in implant prostheses, due to their aesthetic and clinical advantages. When cemented prostheses are made on implants, the problem of cement residues is important and often associated with biological implant pathologies. The objective of this research was to establish to what extent the techniques to reduce excess cement really affect the volume of cement residues. Materials and Methods: This review was written following the PRISMA statement; a detailed search was carried out in three different electronic databases—PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. The inclusion criteria were prospective clinical studies, with at least 10 participants per group, and with at least 6 months of the follow-up period. Results: There have been many proposals for techniques supposed to reduce the amount of excess cement in the peri-implant sulcus and on the prosthetic components, but of these, which are exceptional in their in vitro capabilities, very few have been clinically validated, and this represents the real limitation and a great lack of knowledge regarding this topic. Three articles met the inclusion criteria, which were analyzed and compared, to obtain the information necessary for the purposes of the systematic review. Discussion: Extraoral cementation can reduce the excess cement, which, after a normal excess removal procedure, is, nevertheless, of such size that it does not affect the possibility of peri-implant pathologies developing. All these studies concluded that a small amount of cement residue is found in the gingival sulcus, and using eugenol-free oxide cements, the residues were only deposited on the metal surfaces, with a better peri-implant tissues health. Conclusion: Despite the limitations of this study, it was possible to carefully analyze these characteristics and obtain valuable suggestions for daily clinical practice. Resinous cements are considered, due to the free monomers present in them, toxic for the soft tissues. The provisional zinc-oxide cements, also eugenol-free, represent the ideal choice. The different grades of retentive forces provided by these cements do not seem to have clinical effects on the decementation of restorations. MDPI 2022-01-17 /pmc/articles/PMC8788496/ /pubmed/35076562 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mps5010009 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Reda, Rodolfo
Zanza, Alessio
Cicconetti, Andrea
Bhandi, Shilpa
Guarnieri, Renzo
Testarelli, Luca
Di Nardo, Dario
A Systematic Review of Cementation Techniques to Minimize Cement Excess in Cement-Retained Implant Restorations
title A Systematic Review of Cementation Techniques to Minimize Cement Excess in Cement-Retained Implant Restorations
title_full A Systematic Review of Cementation Techniques to Minimize Cement Excess in Cement-Retained Implant Restorations
title_fullStr A Systematic Review of Cementation Techniques to Minimize Cement Excess in Cement-Retained Implant Restorations
title_full_unstemmed A Systematic Review of Cementation Techniques to Minimize Cement Excess in Cement-Retained Implant Restorations
title_short A Systematic Review of Cementation Techniques to Minimize Cement Excess in Cement-Retained Implant Restorations
title_sort systematic review of cementation techniques to minimize cement excess in cement-retained implant restorations
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8788496/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35076562
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/mps5010009
work_keys_str_mv AT redarodolfo asystematicreviewofcementationtechniquestominimizecementexcessincementretainedimplantrestorations
AT zanzaalessio asystematicreviewofcementationtechniquestominimizecementexcessincementretainedimplantrestorations
AT cicconettiandrea asystematicreviewofcementationtechniquestominimizecementexcessincementretainedimplantrestorations
AT bhandishilpa asystematicreviewofcementationtechniquestominimizecementexcessincementretainedimplantrestorations
AT guarnierirenzo asystematicreviewofcementationtechniquestominimizecementexcessincementretainedimplantrestorations
AT testarelliluca asystematicreviewofcementationtechniquestominimizecementexcessincementretainedimplantrestorations
AT dinardodario asystematicreviewofcementationtechniquestominimizecementexcessincementretainedimplantrestorations
AT redarodolfo systematicreviewofcementationtechniquestominimizecementexcessincementretainedimplantrestorations
AT zanzaalessio systematicreviewofcementationtechniquestominimizecementexcessincementretainedimplantrestorations
AT cicconettiandrea systematicreviewofcementationtechniquestominimizecementexcessincementretainedimplantrestorations
AT bhandishilpa systematicreviewofcementationtechniquestominimizecementexcessincementretainedimplantrestorations
AT guarnierirenzo systematicreviewofcementationtechniquestominimizecementexcessincementretainedimplantrestorations
AT testarelliluca systematicreviewofcementationtechniquestominimizecementexcessincementretainedimplantrestorations
AT dinardodario systematicreviewofcementationtechniquestominimizecementexcessincementretainedimplantrestorations