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

35Citations
Citations of this article
48Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

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.

References Powered by Scopus

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement

53027Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions--a systematic review.

300Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Does residual cement around implant-supported restorations cause peri-implant disease? A retrospective case analysis

246Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Applications and Clinical Behavior of BioHPP in Prosthetic Dentistry: A Short Review

30Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Implant Survival Rate and Prosthetic Complications of OT Equator Retained Maxillary Overdenture: A Cohort Study

9Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Assessment of the Accuracy of Two Different Dynamic Navigation System Registration Methods for Dental Implant Placement in the Posterior Area: An In Vitro Study

8Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Reda, R., Zanza, A., Cicconetti, A., Bhandi, S., Guarnieri, R., Testarelli, L., & Di Nardo, D. (2022, February 1). A Systematic Review of Cementation Techniques to Minimize Cement Excess in Cement-Retained Implant Restorations. Methods and Protocols. MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/mps5010009

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 12

67%

Researcher 5

28%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 18

82%

Engineering 2

9%

Linguistics 1

5%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 1

5%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free