FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2896494631> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2896494631 endingPage "77" @default.
• W2896494631 startingPage "77" @default.
• W2896494631 abstract "Background One of the biggest disadvantage of cement-retained implant prosthesis is the difficulty to completely eliminate excess cement left after prosthesis cementation on the implant abutment. Many clinicians prefer cement-retained suprastructures on implants. There are several methods suggesting how to control or reduce subgingival residual cement around implant retained restorations such as using abutment replicas, gingival displacement cord or rubber dam. Aim/Hypothesis Aim- to evaluate the amount of undetected residual cement after cementation and cleaning on cement-retained implant crown surfaces using rubber dam and gingival displacement cord with copy abutment. Null hypothesis- there is no difference between both methods used. Material and Methods 15 single posterior cement-retained metal-ceramic implant-supported restorations were delivered for nine patients. Crowns were fabricated with occlusal openings and luted with resin-reinforced glass-ionomer on customized abutments with the circular 1 mm subgingival margin. Occlusal openings were obturated with composite and cementation procedure was applied two times- using rubber dam and then retraction cord with copy abutment. After cleaning the excess cement, periapical radiograph was taken. Only if no cement remnants were shown in radiograph, crown abutment unit was dismounted for inspection of undetected excess cement. Cemented suprastructures were sent to dental technician laboratory to separate crowns from abutments and clean all the luting agent. Then second cementing procedure was applied. All quadrants of specimens were photographed for calculation of the ratio between the cement remnants area and the total specimen area using Adobe Photoshop, resulting in 120 measurements. Results Comparing two different luting procedures – using rubber dam (group 1) and gingival displacement cord with copy abutment (group 2), total 60 measurements were done in each group (15 crowns × 4 surfaces). The average ratios with standard deviation (SD) between the cement remnants area and the total area of specimen- group 1 (0.018, SD 0.015)+ group 2 (0.012, SD 0.008). Group 2 showed statistically significant better results (P = 0.027). Comparing mesial, distal, buccal and lingual surfaces, resulting in 30 measurements per group (0.014, SD 0.009+ 0.018, SD 0.013+ 0.013, SD 0.009+ 0.014, SD 0.016) showed no statistically significant difference (P = 0.119). One crown of 15 or 6.67% lost retention when drilling composite from occlusal opening in group 2. Rubber dam stuck between crown and abutment cementation margin in one case of 15 (6.67%) in group 1. Conclusions and Clinical Implications Gingival displacement cord with copy abutment reduced undetected excess cement on cement-retained prostheses more efficiently than rubber dam. There were significant amount of undetected cement remnants left after cleaning and evaluating with dental radiographs in both methods used. These methods can lead to other clinical failures like losing retention or inappropriate seating of suprastructures. Both methods should not be considered as a reliable clinical procedure for avoiding excess cement." @default.
• W2896494631 created "2018-10-26" @default.
• W2896494631 creator A5001144457 @default.
• W2896494631 creator A5011475507 @default.
• W2896494631 creator A5020603315 @default.
• W2896494631 creator A5063677851 @default.
• W2896494631 date "2018-10-01" @default.
• W2896494631 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W2896494631 title "Clinical effectiveness of rubber dam and gingival displacement cord with copy abutment on reducing residual cement for cement-retained implant crowns" @default.
• W2896494631 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.34_13356" @default.
• W2896494631 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2896494631 type Work @default.
• W2896494631 sameAs 2896494631 @default.
• W2896494631 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2896494631 countsByYear W28964946312022 @default.
• W2896494631 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2896494631 hasAuthorship W2896494631A5001144457 @default.
• W2896494631 hasAuthorship W2896494631A5011475507 @default.
• W2896494631 hasAuthorship W2896494631A5020603315 @default.
• W2896494631 hasAuthorship W2896494631A5063677851 @default.
• W2896494631 hasBestOaLocation W28964946311 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C147176958 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C159985019 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C2776189445 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C2778400979 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C2778715743 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C2779227376 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C2781411149 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C2908906697 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C48777230 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C51936186 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C523993062 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C68928338 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConcept C94556721 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C127413603 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C141071460 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C147176958 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C159985019 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C192562407 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C199343813 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C2776189445 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C2778400979 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C2778715743 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C2779227376 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C2781411149 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C2908906697 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C48777230 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C51936186 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C523993062 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C68928338 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C71924100 @default.
• W2896494631 hasConceptScore W2896494631C94556721 @default.
• W2896494631 hasLocation W28964946311 @default.
• W2896494631 hasOpenAccess W2896494631 @default.
• W2896494631 hasPrimaryLocation W28964946311 @default.
• W2896494631 hasRelatedWork W1706577863 @default.
• W2896494631 hasRelatedWork W1988201278 @default.
• W2896494631 hasRelatedWork W2035220155 @default.
• W2896494631 hasRelatedWork W2054168210 @default.
• W2896494631 hasRelatedWork W2397891947 @default.
• W2896494631 hasRelatedWork W2413702628 @default.
• W2896494631 hasRelatedWork W2737125948 @default.
• W2896494631 hasRelatedWork W3081300598 @default.
• W2896494631 hasRelatedWork W340678467 @default.
• W2896494631 hasRelatedWork W363365235 @default.
• W2896494631 hasVolume "29" @default.
• W2896494631 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2896494631 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2896494631 magId "2896494631" @default.
• W2896494631 workType "article" @default.