Evaluation of Different Cementation Techniques on Cement Existence Around Implant Supported Restorations And Peri-Implant Soft Tissue Health
Project no. 408 · Status: Kapanmış · 2016
Summary
The greatest advantage of implant prostheses in terms of patients is that the lost teeth are not damaged by the surrounding tissues. It has been shown that the region where the dental implants are placed causes peri-implant soft-tissue disorders when the proper criteria are not taken into consideration. The most important reasons for this loss are; unfavorable crown formations and cement residues remaining in this area after cementation. Up to now, however, studies that compare current crown form approaches, emergence profiles, and cementation methods with conventional methods are inadequate. In our study, it was planned to investigate whether there is a difference between healing cap & intraoral cementation and the individualized temporary restoration & extraoral cementation in terms of residual cement presence and peri-implanter soft tissue health. For this purpose, two implant (V3, MIS Implant Technologies, Bar Lev Industrial Park, Israel - 4,3mm x 10mm) were applied each patient’s symmetric molar regions and 10 patients were included . Following the implantation of the patients 10-14. day by attaching a prefabricated healing cap (PHC) on one side, with Polyethereterketon (PEEK) abutment on top of the implant on the other side with randomization of the “heads or tails”. After osseointegration period, metal-supported ceramic crowns were built, with the occlusal screw hole. PEEK abutment side was cemented extraorally by margin polish, and the side of the prefabricated healing cap was cemented intraorally. Peri-implant creviculer fluid (PICF) and gingival creviculer fluid (GCF) samples are collected right before starting prosthetic procedures and 2 months after cementation and these samples were examined microbiologically.In our study, the amounts of Porpyhromonas gingivalis, Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Prevotella intermedia and Tannerella forsythia species were determined from the obtained GCF and PICF samples using rt-QPCR technique for microbiological analysis. Crown-abutment complex was then removed from the implants with the help of screw access holes and the composition of this region was examined for the presence of excess cement under a scanning electron microscope (SEM).Chemical analysis and mapping were done with Energy Diffused X-Ray Spectroscopy (EDX). v Statistical analyzes were performed with SPSS 21.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). The normal distribution of groups was checked by Shapiro-Wilk test, then the Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for the chemical data of EDX.No statistically significant differences were found between the atomic percentages of Al (Al) and Titanium (Ti) at the distal or lingual region when the results of the statistical analysis were compared with those of the in out of mouth cemented (ADS) and oral cemented (AIS) (p>0,05). The percentage of silicon (Si) atomic value was not statistically significant in the distal region(p>0,05) while it was statistically significant in the lingual region(p0,05). For microobiological data; nonparametric Brunner and Langer model (F3-LD-F3 design—SAS 9.1 package) was used. In our study, it was concluded that the restoration which is prepared for the screw access hole is a method that can be used safely for single crown’s extraoral cementation. Especially if the restoration margin is deeper than 2 mm for the level of gingiva, It is recommended that using extraoral cementation was the very effective measure to reduce the amount of marginal excess cement.