Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Division for Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Dec;28(12):1515-1522. doi: 10.1111/clr.13020. Epub 2017 Apr 13.
To test whether or not one of two emergence profile designs (concave or convex) is superior to the other in terms of remaining cement following cementation of reconstructions on individualized abutments and careful cement removal.
A central incisor with a single implant-supported reconstruction was selected as a model. Six types of abutments (n = 10) with two different emergence profile designs (concave (CC) and convex (CV)) and three crown-abutment margin depths (epimucosal, 1.5 mm submucosal, 3 mm submucosal) were fabricated through a CAD/CAM procedure. Lithium disilicate reinforced ceramic crowns were cemented with chemically polymerized resin cement. A blinded investigator attempted to remove all cement excess. Thereafter, the entire reconstruction was unscrewed and analyzed for the overall amount and the depth of cement excess. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to investigate differences between groups. When more than two groups were compared between each other, a Bonferroni correction of the P value was performed.
Concave abutments presented significantly more cement remnants than CV abutments when the entire abutment area of the epimucosal margin groups was evaluated (CC0 mm: mean 2.31 mm (SD 0.99) vs. CV0 mm: mean 1.57 mm (SD 0.55); P = 0.043). A statistically significant increase in remnants was detected when the crown-abutment margin was located more submucosally for every abutment studied (0 mm vs. 1.5 mm: P < 0.000, 0 mm vs 3 mm: P < 0.000, 1.5 mm vs. 3 mm: P < 0.000). The buccal quadrant demonstrated the least, whereas the oral and interdental quadrants showed the greatest amount of cement excess.
Concave emergence profile abutments and deep crown-abutment margin positions increased the risk of cement excess. Oral and interdental areas are more prone to cement remnants than other surface areas.
测试在个性化基台上粘结修复体并小心去除粘结剂后,两种不同的出龈轮廓设计(凹面或凸面)中哪一种在残留粘结剂方面更具优势。
选择具有单个种植体支持的重建的中切牙作为模型。通过 CAD/CAM 程序制造了 6 种基台(n=10),具有两种不同的出龈轮廓设计(凹面(CC)和凸面(CV))和三种冠基台边缘深度(黏膜上皮 1.5mm 黏膜下 3mm)。使用化学聚合树脂粘结剂粘结锂硅二硅酸酯增强陶瓷冠。一名盲法研究者试图去除所有多余的粘结剂。然后,将整个修复体拧开并分析总的粘结剂残留量和深度。使用 Kruskal-Wallis 和 Mann-Whitney 检验来研究组间差异。当相互比较超过两组时,对 P 值进行 Bonferroni 校正。
当评估黏膜上皮边缘组的整个基台区域时,凹面基台的粘结剂残留量明显多于凸面基台(CC0mm:平均 2.31mm(SD 0.99)vs. CV0mm:平均 1.57mm(SD 0.55);P=0.043)。当每个研究的基台的冠基台边缘位置更深时,残留量会显著增加(0mm 与 1.5mm:P<0.000,0mm 与 3mm:P<0.000,1.5mm 与 3mm:P<0.000)。颊侧象限残留量最少,而口内和牙间象限残留量最多。
凹面出龈轮廓基台和深冠基台边缘位置增加了粘结剂残留的风险。口内和牙间区域比其他表面区域更容易残留粘结剂。