Cement selection of cemented implant supported restorations

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 tutuculuğ

Zirkonyum esaslı tam seramik restorasyonlarda simantasyon öncesi yüzey hazırlıkları

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;">ÖZET</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US">Tam seramik restorasyonların uzun dönem başarısı, uygun bir simanla yapıştırılmasına bağlıdır. Çinko fosfat simanlar ve modifiye cam iyonomer simanlar zrikonyum oksit restorasyonların simantasyonunda kullanılabilirler. Fakat, resin simanlar tutuculuk özelliklerinin daha iyi olması, marjinal uyumsuzluluk problemlerinin daha az olması ve kırılma dayanıklılığının yüksek olmasından dolayı daha fazla tercih edilmektedir. </span><span class="longtext"><span style="font-size: 12pt; background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white; line-height: 200%; color: black;">Son<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>zamanda geliştirilen zirkonyum oksit seramik restorasyonlar ve rezin simanlar arasındaki bağlantının arttırılması<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>hala devam eden bir sorundur. Zirkonyum oksit seramik restorasyonların üzerinde, asitleme işlemleri<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>ve silan uygulanımı<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>yeterli bir bağlantı kuvveti sağlamamaktadır. Zirkonyum oksit restorasyonların resin simanlarla bağlantı dayanımını arttırmak için uygulanan<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>farklı yüzey işlemleri<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>hakkında literatürde yeterli bilgi mevcut değildir. </span></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US">Bu makalede zirkonyum oksit restorasyonlar ve resin simanlar arasındaki bağlantı kuvvetini arttırmak için uygulanan çeşitli yüzey işlemlerinden bahsedilecektir.</span></span></p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US">SUMMARY</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 200%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US;" lang="EN-US">Longevity of all ceramic restorations in the oral environment is related to successful bonding of ceramic restorations on the tooth surface via appropriate luting cement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Zinc- phosphate or modified glass ionomer cements can be utilized for the cementation of Zirconium oxide restorations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, resin luting cements are preferred due to their superior retentive properties, better seal of marginal discrepancies and increased fracture strength. Establishing a reliable bond in the interface of the recently developed zirconium oxide ceramic restorations and resin cements is still an ongoing problem.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Application of ceramic etching acids and silane compounds on zirconium oxide ceramic restorations is not adequate enough for increasing the bond strength.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are currently not sufficient information concerning surface treatment methods for zirconium oxide restorations and their efficiency. Various surface treatment methods to improve the link between the zirconium oxide ceramic restoration and resin luting cement had been described in this article. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;"> </p></span></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt; line-height: 200%; text-align: justify;"> </p&gt

Three-year treatment outcomes with three brands of implants placed in the posterior maxilla and mandible of partially edentulous patients

Statement of problem. Survival rates of implants in posterior regions vary among clinical studies. Problems occur more often in the posterior segment of the maxilla due to proximity of the maxillary sinus and reduced quality or quantity of alveolar bone. Purpose. This clinical study evaluated the treatment outcomes of 3 brands of implants in the posterior maxillac and mandibles of 63 patients. Treatment outcomes of all implants were assessed according to implant type, location, patient gender, periodontal status, and prosthesis type. Material and methods. A total of 203 implants - 105 ITT (ITT), 53 Camlog (CAM), and 45 Frialit (FRI) - were placed in 63 patients (38 women, 25 men). One hundred twelve implants were located in the posterior mandible and 91 in the posterior maxilla. All implants were longer than 10 mm and had a diameter larger than 3.5 mm. Implants in the ITT group were placed in a 1-stagc surgery. The CAM and FRI groups were treated with a 2-stage surgical protocol. Implants were not loaded until osseointegration was complete, which was determined clinically and radiographically. At that point, implants were restored with 50 single crowns and 81 fixed partial dentures (FPDs). While 11 FPDs connected implants to natural teeth, 70 FPDs were supported by implants only. Standardized radiographs were made, and clinical parameters were recorded at prosthesis insertion (baseline) and at each recall evaluation (6, 12, 24, and 36 months). Plaque index (PT), sulcus bleeding index (SBI), peri-implant probing depth (PD), and radiographic marginal bone loss (MBL) levels were recorded at baseline, along with any biological and mechanical complications. Repeated-measures ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and paired samples tests were used for statistical analysis (alpha = .05). Results. One implant was lost during the osseointegration period in I woman due to infection. The cumulative implant treatment outcome was 99.3%. At the 3-year recall, plaque accumulation was significantly higher than baseline scores (P = .01, Wilcoxon signed rank test). Eight percent of the patients presented >2 mm PD at 2-year recall. The influence of observation time was found to be significant for the mean MBL values between groups (P = .001). When MBL values were compared between groups, no significant differences were found. For I patient in the FRI group, abutment loosening was observed and both the crown and the abutment were replaced. Patient satisfaction in all groups was high. Conclusion. The 3 brands of implants evaluated in this study exhibited similar positive treatment outcomes after 3 years