Andrijauskas Paulius, Zukauskas Saulius, Alkimavicius Jonas, Peciuliene Vytaute, Linkevicius Tomas
Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Faculty of Odontology, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021 May;32(5):549-558. doi: 10.1111/clr.13724. Epub 2021 Mar 1.
To evaluate the amount of residual cement after cementation of implant crown abutments with rubber dam and retraction cord with copy abutments techniques.
Thirty single posterior metal-ceramic implant-supported restorations were delivered to 20 patients. The crowns were fabricated with occlusal openings obturated with composite, and then luted with resin-reinforced glass-ionomer cement on customised standard abutments. The cementation procedure was performed twice in the same specimens using rubber dam (group 1) and retraction cord with copy abutment (group 2). If no cement remnants were seen on periapical radiographs after cleaning, the crown-abutment unit was dismounted. All quadrants of the specimens were photographed to calculate the percentage proportions of residual cement area. Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for statistical analysis.
In each group, 120 measurements were performed (30 implants, 4 surfaces each). The median percentage ratio with interquartile range (IQR) between the cement remnant area and total specimen area was 1.39% (IQR 0.77%-2.29%) and 0.58% (IQR 0.31%-1.33%) in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Lesser cement remnants were found in group 2 with a statistically significant difference (p < .001). The comparison of the mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual surfaces in each group showed no statistically significant differences between them (group 1, p = .482; group 2, p = .330).
The retraction cord and copy abutment reduced the excess cement more efficiently than the rubber dam did. Notwithstanding, undetected cement remnants were observed with both methods, and neither should be considered reliable in clinical applications.
采用复制基台技术，使用橡皮障和缩龈线粘结种植体冠基台后，评估残余水门汀的量。
为20例患者制作了30个单颗后牙金属烤瓷种植支持修复体。制作的全冠用复合树脂封闭咬合面开孔，然后用树脂增强型玻璃离子水门汀粘结在定制的标准基台上。在同一标本上分别使用橡皮障（第1组）和带复制基台的缩龈线（第2组）进行两次粘结操作。清洁后根尖片未见水门汀残留，则拆除冠 - 基台单元。拍摄标本的所有象限照片，计算残余水门汀面积的百分比。采用Mann - Whitney和Kruskal - Wallis检验进行统计学分析。
每组均进行了120次测量（30颗种植体，每个种植体4个表面）。第1组和第2组水门汀残留面积与标本总面积的中位数百分比及四分位数间距（IQR）分别为1.39%（IQR 0.77% - 2.29%）和0.58%（IQR 0.31% - 1.33%）。第2组发现的水门汀残留较少，差异有统计学意义（p <.001）。每组近中、远中、颊侧和舌侧表面的比较显示，它们之间无统计学显著差异（第1组，p = 0.482；第2组，p = 0.330）。
缩龈线和复制基台比橡皮障更有效地减少了多余水门汀。尽管如此，两种方法均观察到未被发现的水门汀残留，在临床应用中两者均不可靠。
