Bosnian
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 2015-Oct

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

Samo registrirani korisnici mogu prevoditi članke
Prijavite se / prijavite se
Veza se sprema u međuspremnik
Michael Korsch
Winfried Walther

Ključne riječi

Sažetak

BACKGROUND

The cementation of fixed implant-supported dental restorations involves the risk of leaving excess cement in the mouth which can promote biofilm formation in the peri-implant sulcus. As a result, an inflammation may develop.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to investigate the clinical effect of two different luting cements on the peri-implant tissue.

METHODS

Within the scope of a retrospective clinical follow-up study, the prosthetic structures of 22 patients with 45 implants were revised. In all cases, a methacrylate cement (Premier Implant Cement [PIC], Premier® Dental Products Company, Plymouth Meeting, PA, USA) had been used for cementation. In 16 additional patients with 28 implants, the suprastructures were retained with a zinc oxide-eugenol cement (Temp Bond [TB], Kerr Sybron Dental Specialities, Glendora, CA, USA). These patients were evaluated in the course of routine treatment.

RESULTS

In both populations, the retention time of the suprastructures was similar (TB 3.77 years, PIC 4.07 years). In the PIC cases, 62% of all implants had excess cement. In the TB cases, excess cement was not detectable on any of the implants. Bleeding on probing was significantly more frequent on implants cemented with PIC (100% with and 94% without excess cement) than on implants cemented with TB (46%). Pocket suppuration was observed on 89% of the PIC-cemented implants with excess cement (PIC without excess cement 24%), whereas implants with TB were not affected by it at all. The peri-implant bone loss was significantly greater in the PIC patients (with excess cement 1.37 mm, without excess cement 0.41 mm) than it was in the TB patients (0.07 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Pridružite se našoj
facebook stranici

Najkompletnija baza ljekovitog bilja potpomognuta naukom

  • Radi na 55 jezika
  • Biljni lijekovi potpomognuti naukom
  • Prepoznavanje biljaka po slici
  • Interaktivna GPS karta - označite bilje na lokaciji (uskoro)
  • Pročitajte naučne publikacije povezane sa vašom pretragom
  • Pretražite ljekovito bilje po učincima
  • Organizirajte svoja interesovanja i budite u toku sa istraživanjem vijesti, kliničkim ispitivanjima i patentima

Upišite simptom ili bolest i pročitajte o biljkama koje bi mogle pomoći, unesite travu i pogledajte bolesti i simptome protiv kojih se koristi.
* Sve informacije temelje se na objavljenim naučnim istraživanjima

Google Play badgeApp Store badge