骨水泥应用技术对种植体单冠的影响。

IF 5.5 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Journal of dentistry Pub Date : 2025-08-30 DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106062

Hsiang Chih Yeh , Xuedong Bai , Yanning Chen , James Kit Hon Tsoi

{"title":"骨水泥应用技术对种植体单冠的影响。","authors":"Hsiang Chih Yeh , Xuedong Bai , Yanning Chen , James Kit Hon Tsoi","doi":"10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To investigate the effect of different cement application techniques on weight of cement, cement film thickness, and retention force of cement-retained implant-supported single crowns.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>Thirty-two samples comprising a titanium abutment analogue and a lithium disilicate crown were prepared and randomly divided into four groups. After surface pre-treatments, crowns were luted to abutment analogues with resin cement, adopting four application techniques: margin of crown (MA), brush on crown (BA), gross application on crown (GA), and pre-seating with chair-side copy abutment (CCA). Weight of cement used was recorded, while the cement film thickness was measured on digital files acquired by Micro-CT. Crown dislodging forces were assessed via the tensile test, after which failure modes were observed and analysed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>CCA group (20.162 ± 2.385 mg) had a significantly lower cement usage than MA (26.149 ± 0.875 mg), BA (25.248 ± 0.644 mg), and GA (25.198 ± 1.226 mg) (<em>P</em> < 0.001). BA (187.06 ± 23.77 µm) presented significantly higher cement film thicknesses than those using other application techniques (155.20 ± 13.44 µm for MA, 152.39 ± 25.32 µm for GA, and 135.73 ± 27.42 µm for CCA) (<em>P</em> <em>=</em> 0.047, 0.027, and < 0.001, respectively). Four groups had comparable dislodging force with no significant difference on failure mode (<em>P</em> = 0.897).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Cement application techniques significantly influenced the weight of cement and cement film thickness on implant-supported single crowns, while the crown dislodging force was not affected. Based on the study result, CCA technique was recommended for cementing implant-supported crowns. A new model was developed for the retention test of anatomical crowns.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical Significance</h3><div>Cement-retained implant restorations are prone to complications induced by excess cement which can compromise clinical outcomes. The study evaluated the factor of cement application technique, proposing the CCA technique for its optimal balance in cement usage, crown retention, and clinical efficiency.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15585,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dentistry","volume":"162 ","pages":"Article 106062"},"PeriodicalIF":5.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of cement application techniques on implant-supported single crowns\",\"authors\":\"Hsiang Chih Yeh , Xuedong Bai , Yanning Chen , James Kit Hon Tsoi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jdent.2025.106062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>To investigate the effect of different cement application techniques on weight of cement, cement film thickness, and retention force of cement-retained implant-supported single crowns.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>Thirty-two samples comprising a titanium abutment analogue and a lithium disilicate crown were prepared and randomly divided into four groups. After surface pre-treatments, crowns were luted to abutment analogues with resin cement, adopting four application techniques: margin of crown (MA), brush on crown (BA), gross application on crown (GA), and pre-seating with chair-side copy abutment (CCA). Weight of cement used was recorded, while the cement film thickness was measured on digital files acquired by Micro-CT. Crown dislodging forces were assessed via the tensile test, after which failure modes were observed and analysed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>CCA group (20.162 ± 2.385 mg) had a significantly lower cement usage than MA (26.149 ± 0.875 mg), BA (25.248 ± 0.644 mg), and GA (25.198 ± 1.226 mg) (<em>P</em> < 0.001). BA (187.06 ± 23.77 µm) presented significantly higher cement film thicknesses than those using other application techniques (155.20 ± 13.44 µm for MA, 152.39 ± 25.32 µm for GA, and 135.73 ± 27.42 µm for CCA) (<em>P</em> <em>=</em> 0.047, 0.027, and < 0.001, respectively). Four groups had comparable dislodging force with no significant difference on failure mode (<em>P</em> = 0.897).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Cement application techniques significantly influenced the weight of cement and cement film thickness on implant-supported single crowns, while the crown dislodging force was not affected. Based on the study result, CCA technique was recommended for cementing implant-supported crowns. A new model was developed for the retention test of anatomical crowns.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical Significance</h3><div>Cement-retained implant restorations are prone to complications induced by excess cement which can compromise clinical outcomes. The study evaluated the factor of cement application technique, proposing the CCA technique for its optimal balance in cement usage, crown retention, and clinical efficiency.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15585,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of dentistry\",\"volume\":\"162 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106062\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571225005081\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571225005081","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

目的：探讨不同的骨水泥应用方法对骨水泥重量、骨水泥膜厚度和单冠固位力的影响。材料与方法：制备钛基台模拟物和二硅酸锂冠样品32个，随机分为4组。表面预处理后，采用冠缘（MA）、刷冠（BA）、刷冠（GA）和椅侧复制基台（CCA）四种应用技术，将冠与树脂水泥基台类似物对接。记录水泥用量，并用Micro-CT采集的数字文件测量水泥膜厚度。通过拉伸试验评估冠位移力，之后观察和分析破坏模式。结果：CCA组（20.162±2.385 mg）的水泥用量显著低于MA组（26.149±0.875 mg）、BA组（25.248±0.644 mg）和GA组（25.198±1.226 mg）（P < 0.001）。BA（187.06±23.77µm）的水泥膜厚度显著高于其他应用方法（MA为155.20±13.44µm， GA为152.39±25.32µm， CCA为135.73±27.42µm）（P分别为0.047、0.027和< 0.001）。四组间位移力比较，破坏模式差异无统计学意义（P = 0.897）。结论：骨水泥应用技术对种植体支撑单冠的骨水泥重量和骨水泥膜厚度有显著影响，但对冠的移位力没有影响。基于研究结果，推荐采用CCA技术进行种植体支撑冠的固接。建立了一种解剖冠固位试验模型。临床意义：骨水泥保留种植体修复体易因骨水泥过量引起并发症，影响临床效果。本研究评估了骨水泥应用技术的因素，提出了CCA技术在骨水泥使用、冠固位和临床效率方面的最佳平衡。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Effects of cement application techniques on implant-supported single crowns

Purpose

To investigate the effect of different cement application techniques on weight of cement, cement film thickness, and retention force of cement-retained implant-supported single crowns.

Material and methods

Thirty-two samples comprising a titanium abutment analogue and a lithium disilicate crown were prepared and randomly divided into four groups. After surface pre-treatments, crowns were luted to abutment analogues with resin cement, adopting four application techniques: margin of crown (MA), brush on crown (BA), gross application on crown (GA), and pre-seating with chair-side copy abutment (CCA). Weight of cement used was recorded, while the cement film thickness was measured on digital files acquired by Micro-CT. Crown dislodging forces were assessed via the tensile test, after which failure modes were observed and analysed.

Results

CCA group (20.162 ± 2.385 mg) had a significantly lower cement usage than MA (26.149 ± 0.875 mg), BA (25.248 ± 0.644 mg), and GA (25.198 ± 1.226 mg) (P < 0.001). BA (187.06 ± 23.77 µm) presented significantly higher cement film thicknesses than those using other application techniques (155.20 ± 13.44 µm for MA, 152.39 ± 25.32 µm for GA, and 135.73 ± 27.42 µm for CCA) (P = 0.047, 0.027, and < 0.001, respectively). Four groups had comparable dislodging force with no significant difference on failure mode (P = 0.897).

Conclusions

Cement application techniques significantly influenced the weight of cement and cement film thickness on implant-supported single crowns, while the crown dislodging force was not affected. Based on the study result, CCA technique was recommended for cementing implant-supported crowns. A new model was developed for the retention test of anatomical crowns.

Clinical Significance

Cement-retained implant restorations are prone to complications induced by excess cement which can compromise clinical outcomes. The study evaluated the factor of cement application technique, proposing the CCA technique for its optimal balance in cement usage, crown retention, and clinical efficiency.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

7.30

自引率

11.40%

发文量

349

审稿时长

35 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Dentistry has an open access mirror journal The Journal of Dentistry: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review. The Journal of Dentistry is the leading international dental journal within the field of Restorative Dentistry. Placing an emphasis on publishing novel and high-quality research papers, the Journal aims to influence the practice of dentistry at clinician, research, industry and policy-maker level on an international basis. Topics covered include the management of dental disease, periodontology, endodontology, operative dentistry, fixed and removable prosthodontics, dental biomaterials science, long-term clinical trials including epidemiology and oral health, technology transfer of new scientific instrumentation or procedures, as well as clinically relevant oral biology and translational research. The Journal of Dentistry will publish original scientific research papers including short communications. It is also interested in publishing review articles and leaders in themed areas which will be linked to new scientific research. Conference proceedings are also welcome and expressions of interest should be communicated to the Editor.