Department of Oral Implantology, The Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, China.
Luzhou Key Laboratory of Oral and Maxillofacial Reconstruction and Regeneration, The Affiliated Stomatological Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan, China.
BMC Oral Health. 2022 Aug 25;22(1):362. doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02403-y.
Sealing materials are used to fill abutment screw access holes (SAH) to prevent microleakage and protect the central screws in oral implant restoration. However, thus far, no consensus has been reached on sealing material selection. In this study, a comparison of the sealing efficacy and removal convenience of different sealing materials for cement-retained implant restoration was conducted.
Various sealing materials were classified into five groups, namely, gutta-percha (GP), temporary restorative paste (TRP), vinyl polysiloxane (VPS), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape, and onlay resin (OR), and 35 sets of analog-abutments were allocated into five groups of seven specimens. A sealing efficacy test was conducted using a modified dye-penetration method, in which a lower absorbance indicated better sealing efficacy. For the removal-convenience test, the materials were removed from each SAH after solidification, and the retrieval time was recorded.
On days 1 and 10, PTFE exhibited the highest absorbance value with significant differences compared to the other groups. On day 30, TRP and PTFE showed significantly higher absorbance values than GP, VPS, and OR, but no significant difference was detected between TRP and PTFE (p = 0.424). The absorbance values of TRP and PTFE from days 1, 10, and 30 showed significant intragroup differences, while those of the other groups did not. In terms of the removal convenience on days 1, 10, and 30, VPS achieved the best performance, followed by PTFE, OR, TRP, and GP.
Within the limitations of this experiment, VPS and OR showed better sealing efficacy against microleakage and a more convenient removal than the other materials; thus, VPS and OR are recommended for clinical use.
密封材料用于填充基台螺丝孔(SAH)以防止微渗漏并保护口腔种植修复中的中央螺丝。然而,迄今为止,对于密封材料的选择尚未达成共识。本研究比较了不同密封材料在水泥固位种植修复中的密封效果和去除便利性。
将各种密封材料分为五类,即牙胶(GP)、临时修复膏(TRP)、乙烯基聚硅氧烷(VPS)、聚四氟乙烯(PTFE)带和嵌体树脂(OR),并将 35 个模拟基台分配到五个七标本组中。采用改良染色渗透法进行密封效果测试,吸收率越低表示密封效果越好。去除便利性测试中,将凝固后的材料从每个 SAH 中去除,并记录回收时间。
第 1 天和第 10 天,PTFE 的吸光度值最高,与其他组相比差异有统计学意义。第 30 天,TRP 和 PTFE 的吸光度值明显高于 GP、VPS 和 OR,但 TRP 和 PTFE 之间无显著差异(p=0.424)。第 1、10 和 30 天,TRP 和 PTFE 的吸光度值在组内有显著差异,而其他组则无。在第 1、10 和 30 天的去除便利性方面,VPS 表现最好,其次是 PTFE、OR、TRP 和 GP。
在本实验的限制范围内,VPS 和 OR 显示出更好的密封效果,防止微渗漏,且比其他材料更容易去除,因此推荐用于临床。