Effects of precementation on minimizing residual cement around the marginal area of dental implants.

Statement of Problem: Residual cement is detrimental to the long-term success of dental implants with a cement-retained restoration. The complete elimination of excess cement remains a challenge.
Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of precementation technique on minimizing the residual cement and retention of restorations.
Material and Methods: Four custom cobalt-chromium alloy (Co-Cr) abutments were manufactured by computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) as precementation abutments with height and radius reductions of 25 μm (A25), 50 μm (A50), 75 μm (A75), and 100 μm (A100). Fifty CAD-CAM-fabricated standard Co-Cr abutments and corresponding crowns were randomly matched and treated as follows: 10 specimens were cemented with the conventional cementation procedure with glass ionomer cement (G0), and 40 were precemented with precementation abutments (n=10) before the definitive cementation with standard abutments (G25, G50, G75, G100). The weight of the cement in the cement space was calculated, and the marginal sealing was evaluated by using a stereoscopic microscope. The effects of precementation with resin cement on minimizing residual cement around the marginal area of dental implants were further evaluated extraorally. The influence of precementation with glass ionomer and resin cement on the retention force was analyzed by using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. One-way ANOVA was used to analyze cement mass and marginal sealing values. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare the retention forces (α=.05).
Results: The cement weight of G50 (7.2 ±0.6 mg) was significantly higher than that of G25 (6.0 ±1.1 mg, P<.05), while no significant differences in cement weights were found among G50, G75, and G100. Consistently, the G50, G75, and G100 had higher marginal sealing values than that of the G25 (P<.01). Extraoral experiments showed that the precementation with A50 reduced subgingival residual cement without affecting retention.
Conclusions: These in vitro results suggest that precementation with a precisely manufactured precementation abutment minimized the residual cement around implant abutments, and 50 μm could be a preferable precementation space.
(Copyright © 2019 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)