Abutment Margin Level and Residual Cement Around the Dental Implant: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.2 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry Pub Date : 2025-08-29 DOI:10.1922/EJPRD_2771Moradianlotfi10

S Moradianlotfi, A Tavasol, A Mohammadi, F Eidy, A B Zarch, A Kasaeian, S Djalalinia, M Alikhasi

{"title":"Abutment Margin Level and Residual Cement Around the Dental Implant: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"S Moradianlotfi, A Tavasol, A Mohammadi, F Eidy, A B Zarch, A Kasaeian, S Djalalinia, M Alikhasi","doi":"10.1922/EJPRD_2771Moradianlotfi10","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Excess cement around implant-supported fixed restorations is a major shortcoming that can lead to implant-related and aesthetic-related problems. Different abutment marginal levels are cited as related to excess cement.Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane based on the PICO strategy up to June 2023. Two authors independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts subsequently. The QUIN tool and Robins-I assessed the risk of bias. A random effect model was used for meta-analysis.Results: A total of 12 articles were included. Different abutment marginal levels including 1mm supragingival, at the gingival level, 1 mm subgingival, and 3 mm subgingival were assessed in the analysis. The combinemean excess cement of the abutment's margins 1 mm supragingival, at the gingival level, and 1mm subgingival were 0.04±0.05 (I2=84%, CI=95%), 1.09±2.0 (I2=49%, CI=95%), and 1.18±6.21 (I2=95%, CI=95%), respectively. The overall proportion of excess cement in the abutment's margins of 1 mm subgingival and 3 mm subgingival level were 0.26 (CI=95%, 0.21;0.3) and 0.29 (CI=95%, 0.25; 0.34).Conclusion: The abutment margin level was related to residual cement. Placing the abutment margin levels more gingivally, and even supra-gingivally wherever possible, seem necessary.","PeriodicalId":45686,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":"267-276"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2771Moradianlotfi10","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Excess cement around implant-supported fixed restorations is a major shortcoming that can lead to implant-related and aesthetic-related problems. Different abutment marginal levels are cited as related to excess cement.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane based on the PICO strategy up to June 2023. Two authors independently screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts subsequently. The QUIN tool and Robins-I assessed the risk of bias. A random effect model was used for meta-analysis.

Results: A total of 12 articles were included. Different abutment marginal levels including 1mm supragingival, at the gingival level, 1 mm subgingival, and 3 mm subgingival were assessed in the analysis. The combinemean excess cement of the abutment's margins 1 mm supragingival, at the gingival level, and 1mm subgingival were 0.04±0.05 (I2=84%, CI=95%), 1.09±2.0 (I2=49%, CI=95%), and 1.18±6.21 (I2=95%, CI=95%), respectively. The overall proportion of excess cement in the abutment's margins of 1 mm subgingival and 3 mm subgingival level were 0.26 (CI=95%, 0.21;0.3) and 0.29 (CI=95%, 0.25; 0.34).

Conclusion: The abutment margin level was related to residual cement. Placing the abutment margin levels more gingivally, and even supra-gingivally wherever possible, seem necessary.

查看原文本刊更多论文

基台边缘水平和种植体周围残留骨水泥：系统回顾和荟萃分析。

背景：种植体支撑的固定修复体周围过量的骨水泥是导致种植体相关和美学相关问题的主要缺点。不同的基台边缘水平被引用为与过量水泥有关。方法：基于PICO策略，综合检索截至2023年6月的Medline/PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science、EMBASE和Cochrane。两位作者随后独立筛选了标题、摘要和全文。QUIN工具和Robins-I评估了偏倚风险。meta分析采用随机效应模型。结果：共纳入12篇文献。在分析中评估了不同的基牙边缘水平，包括龈上1mm、龈下1mm和龈下3mm。基牙边缘龈上1mm、龈下1mm的水泥量分别为0.04±0.05 （I2=84%， CI=95%）、1.09±2.0 （I2=49%， CI=95%）、1.18±6.21 （I2=95%， CI=95%）。在龈下1 mm和龈下3 mm水平的基牙边缘，水泥过量的总体比例分别为0.26 （CI=95%, 0.21;0.3）和0.29 (CI=95%, 0.25；0.34)。结论：基台边缘水平与残余骨水泥有关。将基台边缘水平放置在更靠近牙龈的位置，甚至在可能的地方放置在牙龈上，似乎是必要的。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

2.30

自引率

7.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： The European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry is published quarterly and includes clinical and research articles in subjects such as prosthodontics, operative dentistry, implantology, endodontics, periodontics and dental materials.