The International journal of prosthodontics · 2026
An Intra-Patient Cohort Study on the Effect of Resin-Cement Types on Cement Remnants in Implant-Supported Restorations.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Vindasiutė-Narbute Egle, Puisys Algirdas, Zvirblis Tadas, Pala Kevser, Gallucci German O, Pedrinaci Ignacio
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The choice of retention mechanism in implant-supported restorations (ISRs) strongly influences biological outcomes, with cement-retained ISRs linked to peri-implant complications due to excess cement. Factors such as crown design, margin location, and cement type affect the extent of residual cement and its clinical implications.
MATERIAL & METHODS: This prospective, two-arm, non-randomized clinical trial compared cement remnants of self-adhesive resin (RC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) cement in 30 patients, and 60 ISR. Comparisons were performed on identical pairs of ISR tested within the same patients with a 1-week healing interval. The primary outcome variable was the ratio of cement-covered area to total crown area. Areas were analyzed ex-situ by standardized digital image analysis. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon Signed Rank and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
RESULTS: All specimens showed remnants of residual cement. In the crown-abutment interface, residual cement was detected on all four crown surfaces and for both types of cement, with total relative cement-covered areas ranging from 0.3% to 11.7% and average values between 1.5% (± 0.7%) and 2.0%. (± 2.4%). RMGIC resulted in higher cement residues than RC in all surfaces except the buccal surface, with differences reaching statistical significance in mesial sites (p=0.007). Other surface comparisons showed no statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: RMGIC resulted in higher residue areas than RC. Within the limitations of this study, cement remnants appear to be unavoidable through standard clinical procedures, emphasizing the need for case-specific choice of the retention mechanism for ISRs. Screw-retained ISRs present a viable alternative.
MATERIAL & METHODS: This prospective, two-arm, non-randomized clinical trial compared cement remnants of self-adhesive resin (RC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) cement in 30 patients, and 60 ISR. Comparisons were performed on identical pairs of ISR tested within the same patients with a 1-week healing interval. The primary outcome variable was the ratio of cement-covered area to total crown area. Areas were analyzed ex-situ by standardized digital image analysis. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon Signed Rank and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
RESULTS: All specimens showed remnants of residual cement. In the crown-abutment interface, residual cement was detected on all four crown surfaces and for both types of cement, with total relative cement-covered areas ranging from 0.3% to 11.7% and average values between 1.5% (± 0.7%) and 2.0%. (± 2.4%). RMGIC resulted in higher cement residues than RC in all surfaces except the buccal surface, with differences reaching statistical significance in mesial sites (p=0.007). Other surface comparisons showed no statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: RMGIC resulted in higher residue areas than RC. Within the limitations of this study, cement remnants appear to be unavoidable through standard clinical procedures, emphasizing the need for case-specific choice of the retention mechanism for ISRs. Screw-retained ISRs present a viable alternative.