Comparative study on the radiopacity of different resin-based implant cements / 대한치과보철학회지

PURPOSE: This study was aimed to compare the radiopacity of four kinds of currently available resin based implant cements using digital radiography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four resin-based implant cements ((Estemp Implant(TM) (Spident, Incheon, Korea), Premier(R) Implant (Premier, Pennsylvania, USA), Cem-Implant(TM) (B.J.M lab, Or-yehuda, Israel), InterCem(TM) (SCI-PHARM, California, USA)) and control group (Elite Cement 100(TM) (GC, Tokyo, Japan)) were mixed and cured according to the manufacturer's instructions on the custom made split-type metal mold. A total of 150 specimens of each cement were prepared and each specimen (purity over 99%) was placed side-by-side with an aluminum step wedge for image taking with Intraoral X-ray unit (Esx, Vatech, Korea) and digital X-ray sensor (EzSensor, Vatech, Korea). For the evaluation of aluminum wedge equivalent thickness (mm Al), Image J 1.47 m (Wayne Rasband, National Institutes of Health, USA) and Color inspector 3D ver 2.0 (Interaktive Visualisierung von Farbraumen, Berlin, Germany) programs were used. RESULT: Among the 5 cements, Elite cement 100(TM) (control group) showed the highest radio-opacity in all thickness. In the experimental group, InterCem(TM) had the highest radio-opacity followed by Premier(R) Implant Cement(TM), Cem-Implant(TM) and Estemp Implant(TM). In addition, InterCem(TM) showed radio-opacity that met the ISO No. 4049 standard in all the tested specimen thickness. Cem-Implant on 0.5 mm thickness showed radiopacity that met the ISO No. 4049 standard. CONCLUSION: Among the implant resin-based cements tested in the study, Premier(R) Implant Cement and Estemp Implant(TM) did not show appropriate radio-opacity. Only InterCem(TM) and Cem-Implant(TM) 0.5 mm specimen had the proper radiopacity and met the experiment standard.

A comparison of retentive strength of implant cement depending on various methods of removing provisional cement from implant abutment

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the effectiveness of various methods for removing provisional cement from implant abutments, and what effect these methods have on the retention of prosthesis during the definitive cementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty implant fixture analogues and abutments were embedded in resin blocks. Forty cast crowns were fabricated and divided into 4 groups each containing 10 implants. Group A was cemented directly with the definitive cement (Cem-Implant). The remainder were cemented with provisional cement (Temp-Bond NE), and classified according to the method for cleaning the abutments. Group B used a plastic curette and wet gauze, Group C used a rubber cup and pumice, and Group D used an airborne particle abrasion technique. The abutments were observed using a stereomicroscope after removing the provisional cement. The tensile bond strength was measured after the definitive cementation. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Group B clearly showed provisional cement remaining, whereas the other groups showed almost no cement. Groups A and B showed a relatively smooth surface. More roughness was observed in Group C, and apparent roughness was noted in Group D. The tensile bond strength tests revealed Group D to have significantly the highest tensile bond strength followed in order by Groups C, A and B. CONCLUSION: A plastic curette and wet gauze alone cannot effectively remove the residual provisional cement on the abutment. The definitive retention increased when the abutments were treated with rubber cup/pumice or airborne particle abraded to remove the provisional cement.