水门汀层厚和涂布方式对氧化锆单冠与种植体基台粘固效果的影响
|
摘要
目的:研究种植体支持的氧化锆单冠粘固修复时,传统涂布方法和水门汀预压薄方法水门汀残留和粘接强度的差别。方法:应用Sinora CEREC系统扫描Ankylos标准B型6 mm种植体基台替代体,设计出水门汀层厚为50、80、110μm,厚度为1 mm的氧化锆单冠3D数字模型,通过Sinora CEREC系统的CAD/CAM制作出氧化锆单冠。应用传统涂布方法和水门汀预压薄方法,将不同水门汀层厚的氧化锆单冠用树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀粘固在种植体基台替代体上。观察人工牙龈中水门汀的残留情况,并分别检测不同水门汀层厚氧化锆单冠的粘接强度。结果:用水门汀预压薄方法粘固,50μm组的粘接力明显大于80和110μm组,80和110μm组的粘接力无明显差异。用传统涂布方法粘固,110μm组的粘接力明显小80和50μm组,80和50μm组的粘接力无明显差异。3种水门汀层厚的氧化锆单冠用传统涂布方法粘固后,种植体替代体周围和人工牙龈中溢出和残留的水门汀多于水门汀预压薄方法粘固。结论:树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀预压薄方法粘固种植体支持的氧化锆单冠时,水门汀层厚的设计以50～80μm较佳,而用传统涂布方法粘固时水门汀层厚的设计以80～110μm为好。
Objective: To study the difference of cement residue and adhesion in the conventional coating method and extra-oral cementation method for single zirconia crown supported by dental implants with different thickness of cement. Methods: The Ankylos standard type B 6 mm implant abutment analog was scanned by the Sinora CEREC system and the 3 D digital model of zirconia single crown with the thickness of 50, 80 and 110 μm of the cement layer and 1 mm of the thickness was designed. The zirconia single crown was cut and sintered by CAD/CAM of Sinora CEREC system. The zirconia crowns with the different thickness of cement layer was cemented on the Ankylos standard type B 6 mm implant abutment analogs by traditional coating method and extra-oral cementation method with the resin reinforced glass ionic cement. The residue of cement in the artificial gingiva was observed in each group, and the adhesion of two methods in each group was detected respectively. Results: There was significant difference in the adhesion between the group with the cement layer thickness of 50 μm and the other groups. However, there was no significant difference in the adhesion between the groups with the cement layer thickness of 80 μm and 110 μm. The adhesion of the cement layer thickness of 110 μm group of adhesion is significantly less than the other groups by the conventional coating method. There is no significant difference in adhesion between the cement layer thickness of 80 μm and 50 μm groups. The residual cement around the implant and in the artificial gingiva of the three kinds of zirconia single crowns with three different cement thickness layers cemented by conventional coating method were more than that by the extra-oral cementation method. Conclusions: The zirconia single crown was cemented by extra-oral method with the resin reinforced glass ionic cement was better to be of 50～80 μm cement thickness, while by conventional coating method was better to be of 80～110 μm cement thickness.
Objective: To study the difference of cement residue and adhesion in the conventional coating method and extra-oral cementation method for single zirconia crown supported by dental implants with different thickness of cement. Methods: The Ankylos standard type B 6 mm implant abutment analog was scanned by the Sinora CEREC system and the 3 D digital model of zirconia single crown with the thickness of 50, 80 and 110 μm of the cement layer and 1 mm of the thickness was designed. The zirconia single crown was cut and sintered by CAD/CAM of Sinora CEREC system. The zirconia crowns with the different thickness of cement layer was cemented on the Ankylos standard type B 6 mm implant abutment analogs by traditional coating method and extra-oral cementation method with the resin reinforced glass ionic cement. The residue of cement in the artificial gingiva was observed in each group, and the adhesion of two methods in each group was detected respectively. Results: There was significant difference in the adhesion between the group with the cement layer thickness of 50 μm and the other groups. However, there was no significant difference in the adhesion between the groups with the cement layer thickness of 80 μm and 110 μm. The adhesion of the cement layer thickness of 110 μm group of adhesion is significantly less than the other groups by the conventional coating method. There is no significant difference in adhesion between the cement layer thickness of 80 μm and 50 μm groups. The residual cement around the implant and in the artificial gingiva of the three kinds of zirconia single crowns with three different cement thickness layers cemented by conventional coating method were more than that by the extra-oral cementation method. Conclusions: The zirconia single crown was cemented by extra-oral method with the resin reinforced glass ionic cement was better to be of 50～80 μm cement thickness, while by conventional coating method was better to be of 80～110 μm cement thickness.
引文
[1] Frisch E, Ratka-Krüger P, Weigl P, et al. Extraoral cementation technique to minimize cement-associated peri-implant marginal bone loss: can a thin layer of zinc oxide cement provide sufficient retention[J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2016,29(4):360-362.
[2] Yuzbasioglu E. A modified technique for extraoral cementation of implant retained restorations for preventing excess cement around the margins[J]. J Adv Prosthodont, 2014,6(2):146-149.
[3] Frisch E, Ratka-Krüger P, Weigl P, et al. Minimizing excess cement in implant-supported fixed restorations using an extraoral replica technique: a prospective 1-year study[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2015,30(6):1355-1361.
[4] 张以鸣,杨启祥,王晔,等。树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀的涂布方式对锆瓷冠与种植基台粘固效果的影响[J].口腔材料器械杂志,2018,27(2):79-84.
[5] Avivi-Arber L, Zarb GA. Clinical effectiveness of implant supported single-tooth replacement: the toronto study[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1996,11(3):311-321.
[6] Wannfors K, Smedberg JI. A prospective clinical evaluation of different single-tooth restoration designs on osseointegrated implants. A 3-year follow-up of Br?nemark implants[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 1999,10(6):453-458.
[7] Guichet DL, Caputo AA, Choi H, et al. Passivity of fit and marginal opening in screw- or cement-retained implant fixed partial denture designs[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2000,15(2):239-246.
[8] Pauletto N, Lahiffe BJ, Walton JN. Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: A clinical report[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1999,14(6):865-868.
[9] Goh EX, Lim LP. Implant maintenance for the prevention of biological complications: are you ready for the next challenge?[J]. J Invest Clin Dent, 2017,8(4): doi: 10.1111/jicd.12251.
[10] Mehl C, Harder S, Steiner M, et al. Influence of cement film thickness on the retention of implant-retained crowns[J]. J Prosthodont, 2013,22(8):618-625.
[11] Staubli N, Walter C, Schmidt JC, et al. Excess cement and the risk of peri-implant disease-a systematic review[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2017,28(10):1278-1290.
[12] Wilson TG Jr. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study[J]. J Periodontol, 2009,80(9):1388-1392.
[13] Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Shahtoosi M. Retention of implant-supported zirconium oxide ceramic restorations using different luting agents[J].Clin Oral Implants Res, 2013,24(Suppl A100):20-24.
[2] Yuzbasioglu E. A modified technique for extraoral cementation of implant retained restorations for preventing excess cement around the margins[J]. J Adv Prosthodont, 2014,6(2):146-149.
[3] Frisch E, Ratka-Krüger P, Weigl P, et al. Minimizing excess cement in implant-supported fixed restorations using an extraoral replica technique: a prospective 1-year study[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2015,30(6):1355-1361.
[4] 张以鸣,杨启祥,王晔,等。树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀的涂布方式对锆瓷冠与种植基台粘固效果的影响[J].口腔材料器械杂志,2018,27(2):79-84.
[5] Avivi-Arber L, Zarb GA. Clinical effectiveness of implant supported single-tooth replacement: the toronto study[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1996,11(3):311-321.
[6] Wannfors K, Smedberg JI. A prospective clinical evaluation of different single-tooth restoration designs on osseointegrated implants. A 3-year follow-up of Br?nemark implants[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 1999,10(6):453-458.
[7] Guichet DL, Caputo AA, Choi H, et al. Passivity of fit and marginal opening in screw- or cement-retained implant fixed partial denture designs[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2000,15(2):239-246.
[8] Pauletto N, Lahiffe BJ, Walton JN. Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: A clinical report[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1999,14(6):865-868.
[9] Goh EX, Lim LP. Implant maintenance for the prevention of biological complications: are you ready for the next challenge?[J]. J Invest Clin Dent, 2017,8(4): doi: 10.1111/jicd.12251.
[10] Mehl C, Harder S, Steiner M, et al. Influence of cement film thickness on the retention of implant-retained crowns[J]. J Prosthodont, 2013,22(8):618-625.
[11] Staubli N, Walter C, Schmidt JC, et al. Excess cement and the risk of peri-implant disease-a systematic review[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2017,28(10):1278-1290.
[12] Wilson TG Jr. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study[J]. J Periodontol, 2009,80(9):1388-1392.
[13] Nejatidanesh F, Savabi O, Shahtoosi M. Retention of implant-supported zirconium oxide ceramic restorations using different luting agents[J].Clin Oral Implants Res, 2013,24(Suppl A100):20-24.