SavedAdd your journal

Journals / ADO Klinik Bilimler Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

İmplant Üstü Sabit Protezlerde Artık Siman Miktarını Azaltan Klinik Uygulamalar

Aykut GÖNDER
Serdar POLAT
Elif Didem DEMİRDAĞ
Pages
127–134
Publication Date
2021-05-25
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

With this review, it is aimed to gather the applications aimed at reducing the residual cement amount.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Siman tutuculu implantüstü sabit restorasyonlarda simantasyon sonrası birtakım olumsuzluklar olduğu bilinmektedir.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The risk of inflammation in periodontal tissues of residual cement presence has been demonstrated by scientific studies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:With this review, it is aimed to gather the applications aimed at reducing the residual cement amount.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Artık siman · dental endoskop · ekstraoral replika

Özet

Siman tutuculu implantüstü sabit restorasyonlarda simantasyon sonrası birtakım olumsuzluklar olduğu bilinmektedir. Bu olumsuzlukların başında artık siman gelmektedir. Artık siman varlığının periodontal doku enflamasyonu açısından bir risk oluşturduğu bilimsel çalışmalarla ortaya konmuştur. Siman tutuculu sistemler dezavantajlarına rağmen, sağladığı çeşitli avantajlar nedeniyle yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bu nedenle, artık simanın miktarının azaltılması ve kolay temizlenebilirliği daha da önem kazanmıştır. Bu derleme ile artık siman miktarını azaltmaya yönelik uygulamaların bir araya toplanması amaçlanmıştır. It is known that there are some problems with cement-retained fixed implants after cementation. One of these negativities is residual cement. The risk of inflammation in periodontal tissues of residual cement presence has been demonstrated by scientific studies. Cement-retained systems are widely used due to their advantages as well as their disadvantages. Therefore, the reduction in the amount of cement and its easy cleaning have become even more important. With this review, it is aimed to gather the applications aimed at reducing the residual cement amount.

🔖

Cite This Article

GÖNDER, A., POLAT, S., DEMİRDAĞ, E. D. (2021). İmplant Üstü Sabit Protezlerde Artık Siman Miktarını Azaltan Klinik Uygulamalar. ADO Klinik Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 127–134. https://ajindex.com/articles/898751

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Lee A, Okayasu K, Wang H-L. Screw-versus cement-retained implant restorations: current concepts. Implant Dent 2010; 19: 8-15
  2. Nissan J, Narobai D, Gross O, Ghelfan O, Chaushu G. Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011; 26: 1102-7
  3. Polat S, Tokar E. Dental İmplant Uygulamalarında Kullanılan Abutment Türleri. Ankara: Gazi Kitabevi Tic. Ltd. Şti; 2018. s.41-48
  4. Renvert S, Quirynen M. Risk indicators for peri‐implantitis. A narrative review. Clin. Oral Impl. Res 2015; 26: 15-44
  5. Gapski R, Neugeboren N, Pomeranz AZ, Reissner MW. Endosseous implant failure influenced by crown cementation: a clinical case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23: 943-6
  6. Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CH, Schneider D. Cemented and screw‐retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 163-201
  7. Sherif S, Susarla HK, Kapos T, Munoz D, Chang BM, Wright RF. A systematic review of screw‐versus cement‐retained implant‐supported fixed restorations. J Prosthodont 2014; 23: 1-9
  8. Wilson Jr TG. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri‐implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study. J Periodontol 2009; 80: 1388-92
  9. Pegoraro TA, da Silva NR, Carvalho RM. Cements for use in esthetic dentistry. Dent Clin N Am 2007; 51: 453-71
  10. Wadhwani C, Hess T, Faber T, Piñeyro A, Chen CS. A descriptive study of the radiographic density of implant restorative cements. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 103: 295-302
  11. Patel D, Tredwin CJ, Setchell DJ, Moles DR. An Analysis of the Effect of a Vent Hole on Excess Cement Expressed at the Crown–Abutment Margin for Cement‐Retained Implant Crowns. J Prosthodont 2009; 18: 54-9
  12. Ivanovski S, Lee R. Comparison of peri‐implant and periodontal marginal soft tissues in health and disease. Periodontol 2000 2018; 76: 116-30
  13. Walko G, Castañón MJ, Wiche G. Molecular architecture and function of the hemidesmosome. Cell Tissue Res 2015; 360: 363-78
  14. Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Linkeviciene L, Maslova N, Puriene A. The influence of the cementation margin position on the amount of undetected cement. A prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 71-6
  15. Nematollahi F, Beyabanaki E, Alikhasi M. Cement Selection for Cement‐Retained Implant‐Supported Prostheses: A Literature Review. J Prosthodont 2016; 25: 599-606.