İmplant Üstü Sabit Protezlerde Artık Siman Miktarını Azaltan Klinik Uygulamalar

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 127 - 134, 25.05.2021

Aykut Gönder , Serdar Polat , Elif Didem Demirdağ

Öz

Siman tutuculu implantüstü sabit restorasyonlarda simantasyon sonrası birtakım olumsuzluklar olduğu bilinmektedir. Bu olumsuzlukların başında artık siman gelmektedir. Artık siman varlığının periodontal doku enflamasyonu açısından bir risk oluşturduğu bilimsel çalışmalarla ortaya konmuştur. Siman tutuculu sistemler dezavantajlarına rağmen, sağladığı çeşitli avantajlar nedeniyle yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bu nedenle, artık simanın miktarının azaltılması ve kolay temizlenebilirliği daha da önem kazanmıştır. Bu derleme ile artık siman miktarını azaltmaya yönelik uygulamaların bir araya toplanması amaçlanmıştır.

It is known that there are some problems with cement-retained fixed implants after cementation. One of these negativities is residual cement. The risk of inflammation in periodontal tissues of residual cement presence has been demonstrated by scientific studies. Cement-retained systems are widely used due to their advantages as well as their disadvantages. Therefore, the reduction in the amount of cement and its easy cleaning have become even more important. With this review, it is aimed to gather the applications aimed at reducing the residual cement amount.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Artık siman, dental endoskop, ekstraoral replika, vent modifikasyonları

Kaynakça

• 1. Lee A, Okayasu K, Wang H-L. Screw-versus cement-retained implant restorations: current concepts. Implant Dent 2010; 19: 8-15.
• 2. Nissan J, Narobai D, Gross O, Ghelfan O, Chaushu G. Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26: 1102-7.
• 3. Polat S, Tokar E. Dental İmplant Uygulamalarında Kullanılan Abutment Türleri. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi Tic. Ltd. Şti; 2018. s.41-48.
• 4. Renvert S, Quirynen M. Risk indicators for peri‐implantitis. A narrative review. Clin. Oral Impl. Res 2015; 26: 15-44.
• 5. Gapski R, Neugeboren N, Pomeranz AZ, Reissner MW. Endosseous implant failure influenced by crown cementation: a clinical case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23: 943-6.
• 6. Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle 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.
• 7. Sherif S, Susarla HK, Kapos T, Munoz D, Chang BM, Wright RF. A systematic review of screw‐versus cement‐retained implant‐supported fixed restorations. J Prosthodont 2014; 23: 1-9.
• 8. Wilson Jr TG. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri‐implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study. J Periodontol 2009; 80: 1388-92.
• 9. Pegoraro TA, da Silva NR, Carvalho RM. Cements for use in esthetic dentistry. Dent Clin N Am 2007; 51: 453-71.
• 10. Wadhwani C, Hess T, Faber T, Piñeyro A, Chen CS. A descriptive study of the radiographic density of implant restorative cements. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 103: 295-302.
• 11. Patel D, Tredwin CJ, Setchell DJ, Moles DR. An Analysis of the Effect of a Vent Hole on Excess Cement Expressed at the Crown–Abutment Margin for Cement‐Retained Implant Crowns. J Prosthodont 2009; 18: 54-9.
• 12. Ivanovski S, Lee R. Comparison of peri‐implant and periodontal marginal soft tissues in health and disease. Periodontol 2000 2018; 76: 116-30.
• 13. Walko G, Castañón MJ, Wiche G. Molecular architecture and function of the hemidesmosome. Cell Tissue Res 2015; 360: 363-78.
• 14. 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.
• 15. Nematollahi F, Beyabanaki E, Alikhasi M. Cement Selection for Cement‐Retained Implant‐Supported Prostheses: A Literature Review. J Prosthodont 2016; 25: 599-606.
• 16. Wadhwani C, Schwedhelm ER, Tarica DY, Chung K-H. Implant Luting Cements. In: Wadhwani C, editor. Cementation in Dental Implantology. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag; 2015. p. 47–83. 17. Garg P, Gupta G, Prithviraj D, Pujari M. Retentiveness of various luting agents used with implant-supported prostheses: a preliminary in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont 2013; 26: 82-4.
• 18. Rodrigues DC, Valderrama P, Wilson TG, Palmer K, Thomas A, Sridhar S, et al. Titanium corrosion mechanisms in the oral environment: a retrieval study. Materials 2013; 6: 5258-74.
• 19. Yu H, Zheng M, Chen R, Cheng H. Proper selection of contemporary dental cements. Oral Health Dent Manag. 2014; 13: 54-9.
• 20. Agar JR, Cameron SM, Hughbanks JC, Parker MH. Cement removal from restorations luted to titanium abutments with simulated subgingival margins. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78: 43-7.
• 21. Pashley DH, Tay FR, Carvalho RM, Rueggeberg FA, Agee KA, Carrilho M, et al. From dry bonding to water-wet bonding to ethanol-wet bonding. A review of the interactions between dentin matrix and solvated resins using a macromodel of the hybrid layer. Am J Dent 2007; 20: 7-21.
• 22. Nicholson JW, Czarnecka B. The biocompatibility of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements for dentistry. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 1702-8.
• 23. Raval NC, Wadhwani CP, Jain S, Darveau RP. The interaction of implant luting cements and oral bacteria linked to peri‐implant disease: an in vitro analysis of planktonic and biofilm growth–a preliminary study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17: 1029-35.
• 24. Rodriguez LC, Saba JN, Chung K-H, Wadhwani C, Rodrigues DC. In vitro effects of dental cements on hard and soft tissues associated with dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 2017; 118: 31-5.
• 25. Phan TN, Buckner T, Sheng J, Baldeck J, Marquis R. Physiologic actions of zinc related to inhibition of acid and alkali production by oral streptococci in suspensions and biofilms. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2004; 19: 31-8.
• 26. Pope J, Harrel S. Advanced therapeutics for peri-implant problems. Clin Dent Rev 2020; 4: 1-10.
• 27. Saleh M, Taşar‐Faruk S. Comparing the marginal leakage and retention of implant‐supported restorations cemented by four different dental cements. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21: 1181-8.
• 28. Wadhwani C, Hess T, Piñeyro A, Opler R, Chung K-H. Cement application techniques in luting implant-supported crowns: a quantitative and qualitative survey. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27:859-64.
• 29. Jagathpal AJ, Vally ZI, Sykes LM, du Toit J. Comparison of excess cement around implant crown margins by using 3 extraoral cementation techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2020.
• 30. Chee WW, Duncan J, Afshar M, Moshaverinia A. Evaluation of the amount of excess cement around the margins of cement-retained dental implant restorations: the effect of the cement application method. J Prosthet Dent 2013; 109: 216-21.
• 31. Frisch E, Ratka-Kruger P, Weigl P, Woelber J. Extraoral cementation technique to minimize cement-associated Peri-implant marginal bone loss: can a thin layer of zinc oxide cement provide sufficient retention. Int J Prosthodont 2016; 29: 360-2.
• 32. Jimenez RA, Vargas-Koudriavtsev T. Effect of Preseating, Screw Access Opening, and Vent Holes on Extrusion of Excess Cement at the Crown-Abutment Margin and Associated Tensile Force for Cement-Retained Implant Restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016; 31:807-12.
• 33. Galván G, Kois JC, Chaiyabutr Y, Kois D. Cemented implant restoration: A technique for minimizing adverse biologic consequences. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114: 482-5.
• 34. Yüzbaşıoğlu E. A modified technique for extraoral cementation of implant retained restorations for preventing excess cement around the margins. J Adv Prosthodont 2014;6:146-9.
• 35. Esquivel J, Piñeyro A. Dual-space technique for creating cement space in a cementation device for implant dentistry: A predictable chairside approach. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124: 19-22.
• 36. Lee J-H, Park I-S, Sohn D-S. A digital approach to fabricating an abutment replica to control cement volume in a cement-retained implant prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116: 25-8.
• 37. Wadhwani C, Piñeyro A, Hess T, Zhang H, Chung K-H. Effect of implant abutment modification on the extrusion of excess cement at the crown-abutment margin for cement-retained implant restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26: 1241-6.
• 38. Zaugg LK, Zehnder I, Rohr N, Fischer J, Zitzmann NU. The effects of crown venting or pre‐cementing of CAD/CAM‐constructed all‐ceramic crowns luted on YTZ implants on marginal cement excess. Clin Oral Impl Res 2018; 29: 82-90.
• 39. Al Amri MD, Al-Johany SS, Al-Qarni MN, Al-Bakri AS, Al-Maflehi NS, Abualsaud HS. Influence of space size of abutment screw access channel on the amount of extruded excess cement and marginal accuracy of cement-retained single implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119: 263-9.
• 40. Wadhwani C, Chung K-H. Effect of modifying the screw access channels of zirconia implant abutment on the cement flow pattern and retention of zirconia restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 45-50.
• 41. 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 Impl Res 2011; 22: 1379-84.
• 42. Sancho‐Puchades M, Crameri D, Özcan M, Sailer I, Jung R, Hämmerle C, et al. The influence of the emergence profile on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement‐retained implant reconstructions. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2017; 28: 1515-22.
• 43. Gehrke P, Bleuel K, Fischer C, Sader R. Influence of margin location and luting material on the amount of undetected cement excess on CAD/CAM implant abutments and cement-retained zirconia crowns: an in-vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2019; 19: 1-12.
• 44. Hess TA. A technique to eliminate subgingival cement adhesion to implant abutments by using polytetrafluoroethylene tape. J Prosthet Dent 2014; 112: 365-8.
• 45. Sattar M, Patel M, Alani A. Clinical applications of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape in restorative dentistry. Br Dent J 2017; 222: 151-8.
• 46. Bukhari SA, AlHelal A, Kattadiyil MT, Wadhwani CP, Taleb A, Dehom S. An in vitro investigation comparing methods of minimizing excess luting agent for cement-retained implant-supported fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:706-15.
• 47. Svoboda ELA. The Evolution from Stock to Custom Abutments Allows for a Better Prosthesis Design that can Control the Gingival Effects and thus the flow of Excess Cement. www.ReverseMargin.com. 2015:1-10.
• 48. Svoboda ELA, Sharma A, Zakari M. Comparing the Chamfer and Reverse Margin Systems at Preventing Submarginal Cement while varying Crown Installation Pressure and Margin Depth. www.ReverseMargin.com. 2020;1-13. 49. Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Maslova N, Linkeviciene L, Peciuliene V, Linkevicius T. Clinical factors influencing removal of the cement excess in implant‐supported restorations. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015; 17: 771-8.
• 50. Zembic A, Sailer I, Jung RE, Hämmerle CHF. Randomized‐controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for single‐tooth implants in canine and posterior regions: 3‐year results. Clin Oral Impl Res 2009; 20: 802-8.