The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A novel retentive type of dental implant prosthesis: marginal fitness of the cementless double crown type implant prosthesis evaluated by bacterial penetration and viability

  • Hong, Seoung-Jin (Department of Prosthodontics, Kyung Hee University Dental Hospital) ;
  • Kwon, Kung-Rock (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Jang, Eun-Young (Department of Oral Microbiology, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Moon, Ji-Hoi (Department of Oral Microbiology, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University)
  • Received : 2020.03.04
  • Accepted : 2020.07.10
  • Published : 2020.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This study aims to compare the marginal fitness of two types of implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis, i.e., cementless fixation (CL.F) system and cement-retained type. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In each group, ten specimens were assessed. Each specimen comprised implant lab analog, titanium abutment fabricated with a 2-degree tapered axial wall, and zirconia crown. The crown of the CL.F system was retained by frictional force between abutment and relined composite resin. In the cement-retained type, zinc oxide eugenol cement was used to set crown and abutment. All specimens were sterilized with ethylene oxide, immersed in Prevotella intermedia culture in a 50 mL tube, and incubated with rotation. After 48 h, the specimens were washed thoroughly before separating the crown and abutment. The bacteria that penetrated into the crown-abutment interface were collected by washing with 500 µL of sterile saline. The bacterial cell number was quantified using the agar plate count technique. The BacTiter-Glo Microbial Cell Viability Assay Kit was used to measure bacterial adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-bioluminescence, which reflects the bacterial viability. The t-test was performed, and the significance level was set at 5%. RESULTS. The number of penetrating bacterial cells assessed by colony-forming units was approximately 33% lower in the CL.F system than in the cement-retained type (P<.05). ATP-bioluminescence was approximately 41% lower in the CL.F system than in the cement-retained type (P<.05). CONCLUSION. The CL.F system is more resistant to bacterial penetration into the abutment-crown interface than the cement-retained type, thereby indicating a precise marginal fit.

Keywords

References

  1. Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Holloway JA, Denry I, Thomas GW, Qian F. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. J Prosthodont 2014;23:610-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12180
  2. Salvi GE, Bragger U. Mechanical and technical risks in implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:69-85.
  3. Shadid R, Sadaqa N. A comparison between screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. A literature review. J Oral Implantol 2012;38:298-307. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00146
  4. Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Peciuliene V. The influence of margin location on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:1379-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02119.x
  5. Linkevicius T, Puisys A, Vindasiute E, Linkeviciene L, Apse P. Does residual cement around implant-supported restorations cause peri-implant disease? A retrospective case analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:1179-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02570.x
  6. Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Linkeviciene L, Maslova N, Puriene A. The influence of the cementation margin position on the amount of undetected cement. A prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:71-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02453.x
  7. Lee H, Park S, Kwon KR, Noh G. Effects of cementless fixation of implant prosthesis: a finite element study. J Adv Prosthodont 2019;11:341-9. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2019.11.6.341
  8. Assif D, Marshak B, Schmidt A. Accuracy of implant impression techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:216-22.
  9. Jepsen S, Berglundh T, Genco R, Aass AM, Demirel K, Derks J, Figuero E, Giovannoli JL, Goldstein M, Lambert F, Ortiz-Vigon A, Polyzois I, Salvi GE, Schwarz F, Serino G, Tomasi C, Zitzmann NU. Primary prevention of peri-implantitis: managing peri-implant mucositis. J Clin Periodontol 2015;42:S152-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12369
  10. Wittneben JG, Millen C, Bragger U. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions- a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:84-98. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g2.1
  11. Sailer I, Muhlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CH, Schneider D Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:163-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02538.x
  12. Lee JH, Park IS, Sohn DS. A digital approach to fabricating an abutment replica to control cement volume in a cementretained implant prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:25-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.008
  13. Canullo L, Cocchetto R, Marinotti F, Oltra DP, Diago MP, Loi I. Clinical evaluation of an improved cementation technique for implant-supported restorations: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:1492-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12589
  14. Gomez-Polo M, Ortega R, Gomez-Polo C, Celemin A, Del Rio Highsmith J. Factors affecting the decision to use cemented or screw-retained fixed implant-supported prostheses: A critical review. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:43-54. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5279
  15. Lemos CA, de Souza Batista VE, Almeida DA, Santiago Junior JF, Verri FR, Pellizzer EP. Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:419-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.08.026
  16. Carnaggio TV, Conrad R, Engelmeier RL, Gerngross P, Paravina R, Perezous L, Powers JM. Retention of CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns on prefabricated implant abutments: an in vitro comparative study of luting agents and abutment surface area. J Prosthodont 2012;21:523-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2012.00847.x
  17. Mehl C, Harder S, Wolfart M, Kern M, Wolfart S. Retrievability of implant-retained crowns following cementation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:1304-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01587.x
  18. Schierano G, Manzella C, Menicucci G, Parrotta A, Zanetti EM, Audenino AL. In vitro standardization of two different removal devices in cemented implant prosthesis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:1026-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12671
  19. Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Ebrahimi M, Savabi G. Retentiveness of implant-supported metal copings using different luting agents. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2012;9:13-8. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.92921
  20. Garg P, Gupta G, Prithviraj DR, Pujari M. Retentiveness of various luting agents used with implant-supported prostheses: a preliminary in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26:82-4. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.2572
  21. Busscher H, Rinastiti M, Siswomihardjo W, van der Mei H. Biofilm formation on dental restorative and implant materials. J Dent Res 2010;89:657-65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510368644
  22. Korsch M, Marten SM, Dotsch A, Jauregui R, Pieper DH, Obst U. Effect of dental cements on peri-implant microbial community: comparison of the microbial communities inhabiting the peri-implant tissue when using different luting cements. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:e161-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12582
  23. Markowitz K, Moynihan M, Liu M, Kim S. Biologic properties of eugenol and zinc oxide-eugenol. A clinically oriented review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992;73:729-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(92)90020-Q
  24. Trowbridge HO. Intradental sensory units: physiological and clinical aspects. J Endod 1985;11:489-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(85)80222-3
  25. Taylor MJ, Lynch E. Microleakage. J Dent 1992;20:3-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(92)90002-T
  26. Boruziniat A, Gharaee S, Sarraf Shirazi A, Majidinia S, Vatanpour M. Evaluation of the efficacy of flowable composite as lining material on microleakage of composite resin restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Quintessence Int 2016;47:93-101.
  27. Yavuz I, Aydin H. Research M. New direction for measurement of microleakage in cariology research. J Int Dent Med Res 2010;3:19-24.
  28. Tjan AH, Dunn JR, Grant BE. Marginal leakage of cast gold crowns luted with an adhesive resin cement. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:11-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90039-D
  29. Park JY, Bae SY, Lee JJ, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Evaluation of the marginal and internal gaps of three different dental prostheses: comparison of the silicone replica technique and three-dimensional superimposition analysis. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:159-69. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.3.159
  30. Holst S, Karl M, Wichmann M, Matta RE. A new triple-scan protocol for 3D fit assessment of dental restorations. Quintessence Int 2011;42:651-7.
  31. Hepdeniz OK, Temel UB, Ugurlu M, Koskan O. The effect of surface sealants with different filler content on microleakage of Class V resin composite restorations. Eur J Dent 2016;10:163-9. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.178315
  32. Takahashi N, Ishihara K, Kimizuka R, Okuda K, Kato T. The effects of tetracycline, minocycline, doxycycline and ofloxacin on prevotella intermedia biofilm. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2006;21:366-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-302X.2006.00305.x
  33. White SN, Ingles S, Kipnis V. Influence of marginal opening on microleakage of cemented artificial crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:257-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90464-2