Cement selection of cemented implant supported restorations
Abstract
Cemented implant-supported restorations (CISR) are routinely used implant retained restorations. The greatest disadvantage of CISR is lack of reliable means of retaining and then retrieving the superstructure for routine care and maintenance. But the selection of method of the crown retention presents clinician with a treatment challenge that involves recognition of the drivers of the desired treatment option. Regarding this aspect, the type of cement is a relevant and decisive factor for retention. The dental cements used for cementing implant-supported prostheses may present different effects when compared with those used on teeth. In considering implant abutment-retained crowns, the ideal cement should be strong enough to retain the crown indefinitely, yet weak enough to allow the clinician to retrieve it if necessary.
Key words: Implant restorations, Cement retention
ÖZET
Siman tutuculu implant destekli (STİD) protezler , implant destekli restorasyonlarda rutin olarak kullanılmaktadır. STİD protezlerin en büyük dezavantajları arasında bu protezlerin simante edilmesinden dolayı rutin bakımının yapılamaması gelmektedir. Fakat kron retansiyon metodunun seçimi ile klinisyenler istedikleri tedavi opsiyonuna sahip olabilirler. Bunun içinde, STİD protezlerde kullanılan yapıştırma simanlarının seçimi önemlidir. STİD protezlerde kullanılan simanlar doğal diş restorasyonlarında kullanılan simanlarla aynı özellikte olmalarına rağmen implant restorasyonlarına uygulandıklarına farklılık gösterirler. STİD protezlerde kullanılan simanlar, yeterli tutuculuğa sahip olmalı bununla birlikte implant kontrolünde de hekime restorasyonların rahat çıkarabilme imkanı sağlamalıdırlar.
Anahtar kelimeler: İmplant restorasyonlar, Siman tutuculuğu
Keywords
References
- Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw- retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:719-728.
- Squier RS, Agar JR, Duncan JP, Taylor TD. Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:793-798.
- Chee W, Felton DA, Johnson PF, Sullivan DY. Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: Which is better? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:137–
- Vigolo P, Givani A, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. Cemented versus screw- retained implant-supported single- tooth crowns: a 4-year prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004;19:260-265.
- Chan DCN, Wilson AH, Barbe P, Cronin RJ , Chung C, Chung K. Effect of preparation convergence on retention and seating discrepancy of complete veneer crowns. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:58–64.[CrossRef]
- Randi AP, Hsu A Verga A, Kim JJ. Dimensional accuracy and retentive strength of a retrievable cement- retained prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:547–556. supported
- Sheets JL,Wilcox C, Wilwerding TJ. Cement selection for cement-retained crown implants. J Prosthodont 2008;17:92- [CrossRef] with dental
- Dudley JE, Richards LC, Abbott JR. Retention of cast crown copings cemented to implant abutments. Aust Dent J 2008;53:332–339.[CrossRef]
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
-
Journal Section
-
Publication Date
April 19, 2012
Submission Date
March 2, 2011
Acceptance Date
-
Published in Issue
Year 1970 Volume: 15 Number: 2
Cited By
The pull-out retention strength of different cements used in implant-supported fixed restorations
Journal of Health Sciences and Medicine
https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1852327