Purpose Abutment access hole on dental implant crowns may facilitate crown retrieval and reduce cement overflow but present esthetic obstacle for patients. This study aimed to investigate the esthetic evaluation and acceptability of implant crowns with different hole designs from the perspective of patients and dentists. Materials and Methods Anterior and posterior implant zirconia crowns were fabricated into three types: no hole (NH), 1 mm micro hole (MH), and 2.5 mm regular hole (RH). The NH crown was set as the control, and the anterior and posterior crowns with MH and RH were evaluated. The subjects, who were recruited randomly, were comprised of lay patients (n=60) and professional dentists (n=30). All subjects were invited to evaluate the esthetic performance of MH and RH crowns on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), rate them from 0 to 10, state their acceptability of these crowns, and label them as acceptable and unacceptable. Results The ANOVA analysis of the VAS esthetic evaluation showed that the size of the hole, the position of the teeth, and the professional background of the subject significantly and independently affected esthetic perception. Crowns with MH in the posterior position had higher esthetic scores and acceptability compared with crowns with RH in the anterior position, and dentists tended to show higher acceptance and better esthetic rating for crowns with holes compared with lay patients. Conclusion The hypothesis that patients and dentists hold similar esthetic evaluations or acceptability towards implant crown hole designs was rejected. Lay patients had a lower tolerance for venting holes than dentists. Crowns with 1 mm micro holes were more recommendable than crowns with regular abutment access holes from the point of view of satisfying patients’ esthetic needs.

Background This in vitro study aimed to provide evidence regarding the selection of hole diameters of implant crowns to reduce excess cement extrusion at the abutment margin, and to examine the maintenance of their retention capacity in anterior and posterior cement-retained implant crowns. Methods Six groups of implant crowns were prepared according to the position of the teeth and the size of their holes as follows: anterior crown without hole (ANH), anterior crown with 1-mm mini venting hole (AMH), anterior crown with 2.5-mm regular screw access hole (ARH), posterior crown without hole (PNH), posterior crown with 1-mm mini venting hole (PMH), and posterior crown with 2.5-mm regular screw access hole (PRH). Temporary cement was used to bond the crowns to the abutments. The mean amount of excess cement extrusion among the different groups at the abutment margin was calculated. Retentive strength under different hole designs was measured as the dislocation force of the crown using a universal testing machine. One-way ANOVA and Welch’s t-test were used to analyze the results. Results The average amounts of extruded excess cement were 18.96 ± 0.64, 1.78 ± 0.41, and 1.30 ± 0.41 mg in the ANH, AMH, and ARH groups, respectively, and 14.87 ± 0.36, 1.51 ± 0.40, and 0.82 ± 0.22 mg in the PNH, PMH, and PRH groups, respectively. The hole opening in the crowns could significantly reduce residual cement regardless of its size (p < 0.001). The mean retentive strengths were 54.16 ± 6.00, 47.63 ± 13.54, and 31.99 ± 7.75 N in the ANH, AMH, and ARH groups, respectively, and 57.84 ± 10.19, 53.22 ± 6.98, and 39.48 ± 5.12 N in the PNH, PMH, and PRH groups, respectively. The retention capacity of the implant crown deteriorated rapidly as the holes on the crown surface enlarged. Conclusions The presence of a hole on the implant crown reduced the amount of excess cement. The retention ability of the implant crowns deteriorated as the size of the hole increased. Considering the esthetic effect of the crown and the possible influence on crown retention, an implant crown with a 1-mm mini venting hole is a better clinical choice than the one with a 2.5-mm regular screw access hole.

Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.

Although placing a vent hole on the occlusal surface of the implant crown can reduce cervical marginal cement extrusion, it has disadvantages. Transferring the hole to the buccal or lingual surface of the posterior implant crown could therefore be an alternative solution. This study investigated the effect of transferring the vent hole to the lateral side of the implant posterior crown on the hydrodynamics of excess cement extrusion and the crown’s retention ability. Specially fabricated posterior implant crowns were divided into five groups: crowns with an occlusal hole (OH), occlusal lateral hole (OLH), middle lateral hole (MLH), cervical lateral hole (CLH), and no hole (NH). Each set of implant analog-abutment-crown specimens was wrapped in a polymethylacrylate base. The base of the implant crown was divided into four 90-degree quadrants along the diagonal of the square base with a pen mark. Cement was used to bond the crowns and the abutments, and the weight of cement extrusions at the vent holes and the abutment cervical margins were calculated. The distribution of cement extrusion at the margin was photographed in each quadrant, and the areas of surface coverage of cement extrusion were compared with ImageJ software. Retentive strength was measured as the dislocation force using a universal testing machine. One-way analysis of variance was used for result analysis. The cervical marginal cement extrusions of crowns with lateral holes (OLH, MLH, and CLH) were significantly less than that of NH crowns (P<0.05), but more than that of OH crowns (P<0.05). Subgroup analysis among the lateral hole groups indicated that the higher the position of the lateral hole, the lower the weight of the cement extrusion, and the smaller the total distribution area of cement extrusion. The cement extrusion distribution area was larger in the quadrant with the hole than in those opposite and next to the hole. Retention strength comparison indicated no significant difference between crowns with NH, OH, or lateral holes. Transferring the vent hole of the posterior implant crown to the lateral side could reduce cement extrusion at the cervical margin while reducing retention strength deterioration and the esthetic drawbacks caused by occlusal hole opening.