Peri‐Implantitis Associated with Type of Cement: A Retrospective Analysis of Different Types of Cement and Their Clinical Correlation to the Peri‐Implant Tissue

Korsch, Michael; Walther, Winfried

doi:10.1111/cid.12265

Cited by 57 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies have shown that, in the presence of excess cement at the crown-abutment interface, periimplant mucosal inflammation or bone loss occurs 80% to 85% of the time. [57][58][59] The use of certain cement, for example, methacrylate-based cement, is associated with increased residual cement and consequently a higher prevalence for peri-implant diseases 57,60 because they are less viscous 60 and also more susceptible to bacterial invasion. 61 In contrast, zinc oxide eugenol-containing cements are more viscous, thus, easier to remove and can inhibit biofilm growth at the crown-abutment interface.…”

Section: Prosthetic Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Periimplantitis Be Treated?

Wang

2015

Dental Clinics of North America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Prosthetic Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Periimplantitis Be Treated?

Wang

2015

Dental Clinics of North America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Cement retained implant restoration has issues including irretrievability and difficulty of controlling the cement excess beyond the abutment joint. The cement excess can be a major cause of peri-implantitis [13–15]. Screw-retained implant restoration has also some disadvantages including the difficulty to get a right positioning of the access-hole compatible with a suitable aesthetic appearance and the aesthetic result of the access-hole restoration [16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study

Tanimura¹,

Suzuki

2017

Int J Implant Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundScrew retained implant prostheses seem to be an efficient restorative method to prevent peri-implantitis caused by cement excess around the abutment. The drawback of the screw-retained prostheses is the difficulty to realize an efficient access-hole filling functionally and aesthetically. Up to now, few in vitro and in vivo studies were reported in the literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical performances of two direct filling materials through a period of 12 months.MethodsTo pursue a previous in vitro evaluation, this in vivo 12 months prospective study followed up and compared the access-hole filling integrity of a modified 4-META (4-methacryloxyethyl trimellitate anhydride)/MMA-TBB (methyl methacrylate-tri-n-butyl borane) – based resin (M4M) and a photo-polymerizing nano-hybrid composite resin (CR).Twenty-eight access-holes were filled with both materials respectively, then impressions and intra-oral photographs were taken at T = 0, T = 1 M (month), 3, 6, and 12 M. The access-hole surface measurement and the margin analysis (depth and angle) were carried out. The VAS (visual analogue scale) value on marginal discoloration and integrity at the baseline T = 0 and T = 12 M was recorded.ResultsThe mean values of the surface areas changes from T = 1 to T = 12 M were 83.3 ± 11.5% for group CR and 77.1 ± 13.1% for group M4M, respectively. (Mann-Whitney test p < 0.05, p = 0.046). The mean marginal depth at T = 12 M for group CR were 141.2 ± 125.5 μm and 132.1 ± 107.8 μm for the group M4M, respectively. (Mann-Whitney test p > 0.05, p = 0.58). The mean values of the angle formed at the margin (T = 12 M) were for group CR 39.5 ± 19.4° and 28.2 ± 17.2° for group M4M, respectively (Mann-Whitney test p < 0.0001). The photographical analysis by VAS values showed no significant difference between CR and M4M groups (Mann-Whitney test p > 0.05, p = 0.848).ConclusionsBased on intra- and extra-oral evaluations with the limitation, both CR and M4M combined with a ceramic primer are indicated as promising materials to fill the access-hole. Further long-term investigation is necessary to confirm this finding.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, even when careful and appropriate technique is used for cementation, selection of cement type remains an important component of the therapeutic procedure. In a retrospective study, Korsch and Walther 20 found a remarkably high percentage of implants cemented with methacrylate cement having cement excess (62%) and mucosal inflammation (94% to 100%) compared to a zinc oxide‐cemented group. After removal of the methacrylate cement and recementation of the implant crowns with zinc oxide cement, a reduction in BOP of >75% of the cases was observed 16 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of the Association Between Cement Retention and Prevalent Peri‐Implant Diseases: A Cross‐Sectional Study

Kotsakis

Zhang

Gaillard

et al. 2016

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Peri‐Implantitis Associated with Type of Cement: A Retrospective Analysis of Different Types of Cement and Their Clinical Correlation to the Peri‐Implant Tissue

Abstract: The frequency of undetected excess cement depends essentially on the type of cement used. Cements that tend to leave more undetected excess have a higher prevalence for peri-implant inflammation and cause a more severe peri-implant bone loss.

Cited by 57 publications

References 17 publications

Can Periimplantitis Be Treated?

Can Periimplantitis Be Treated?

Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study

Investigation of the Association Between Cement Retention and Prevalent Peri‐Implant Diseases: A Cross‐Sectional Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About