Open Access, Peer-reviewed, Quarterly
pISSN 0301-2875
eISSN 2005-3789
    J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2014 Apr;52(2):97-104. Korean.
    Published online Apr 28, 2014.
    https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2014.52.2.97
    Copyright © 2014 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
    Original Article

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

    Kyeong-Hwan Han, Ho-Young Cheon, Min-Su Kim, Sang-Wan Shin and Jeong-Yol Lee
      • Post Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Institute for Clinical Dental Reserch, Korea University, Repubulic of Korea.
    • Corresponding Author: Jeong-Yol Lee. Department of Prosthodontics, Institute for Clinical Dental Research, Koera University Medical Center, Koera University 97, Guro-Dong, Guro-Ku, Seoul, 152-703, Republic of Korea. +82 2 2626 1922, Email: wddc@korea.ac.kr
    Received March 21, 2014; Revised April 02, 2014; Accepted April 03, 2014.

    This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

    Abstract

    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™ (Spident, Incheon, Korea), Premier® Implant (Premier, Pennsylvania, USA), Cem-Implant™ (B.J.M lab, Or-yehuda, Israel), InterCem™ (SCI-PHARM, California, USA)) and control group (Elite Cement 100™ (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 Farbräumen, Berlin, Germany) programs were used.

    Result

    Among the 5 cements, Elite cement 100™ (control group) showed the highest radio-opacity in all thickness. In the experimental group, InterCem™ had the highest radio-opacity followed by Premier® Implant Cement™, Cem-Implant™ and Estemp Implant™. In addition, InterCem™ 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® Implant Cement and Estemp Implant™ did not show appropriate radio-opacity. Only InterCem™ and Cem-Implant™ 0.5 mm specimen had the proper radiopacity and met the experiment standard.

    Keywords
    Radiopacity; Implant cement; Cement-type; Peri-implantitis

    Figures

    Fig. 1
    Metal mold for specimens.

    Fig. 2
    99% Aluminum step wedge.

    Fig. 3
    Radiographic image of specimen and Aluminum step wedge. (A) 0.5 mm thickness, (B) 1.0 mm thickness, (C) 2.0 mm thickness.

    Fig. 4
    Aluminum wedge equivalent thickness values of experimental groups. *: No significant difference.

    Tables

    Table 1
    Experimental cements used in this study

    Table 2
    Aluminum wedge equivalent thickness(mm Al) of cements

    References

      1. De Rouck T, Collys K, Cosyn J. Single-tooth replacement in the anterior maxilla by means of immediate implantation and provisionalization: a review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:897–904.
      1. Lee A, Okayasu K, Wang HL. Screw- versus cement-retained implant restorations: current concepts. Implant Dent 2010;19:8–15.
      1. Chee W, Jivraj S. Screw versus cemented implant supported restorations. Br Dent J 2006;201:501–507.
      1. Chaar MS, Att W, Strub JR. Prosthetic outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed dental restorations: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil 2011;38:697–711.
      1. Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:719–728.
      1. 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;26:1102–1107.
      1. Ramp MH, Dixon DL, Ramp LC, Breeding LC, Barber LL. Tensile bond strengths of provisional luting agents used with an implant system. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:510–514.
      1. Koka S, Ewoldsen NO, Dana CL, Beatty MW. The effect of cementing agent and technique on the retention of a CeraOne gold cylinder: a pilot study. Implant Dent 1995;4:32–35.
      1. Clayton GH, Driscoll CF, Hondrum SO. The effect of luting agents on the retention and marginal adaptation of the CeraOne implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1997;12:660–665.
      1. Akça K, Iplikçioğlu H, Cehreli MC. Comparison of uniaxial resistance forces of cements used with implant-supported crowns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:536–542.
      1. GaRey DJ, Tjan AH, James RA, Caputo AA. Effects of thermocycling, load-cycling, and blood contamination on cemented implant abutments. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:124–132.
      1. Cho-Yan Lee J, Mattheos N, Nixon KC, Ivanovski S. Residual periodontal pockets are a risk indicator for peri-implantitis in patients treated for periodontitis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:325–333.
      1. Shapoff CA, Lahey BJ. Crestal bone loss and the consequences of retained excess cement around dental implants. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2012;33:94–96. 98–101.
      1. Wilson TG Jr. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study. J Periodontol 2009;80:1388–1392.
      1. Dumbrigue HB, Abanomi AA, Cheng LL. Techniques to minimize excess luting agent in cement-retained implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:112–114.
      1. Schwedhelm ER, Lepe X, Aw TC. A crown venting technique for the cementation of implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:89–90.
      1. Wadhwani C, Piñeyro A. Technique for controlling the cement for an implant crown. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:57–58.
      1. Wadhwani C, Rapoport D, La Rosa S, Hess T, Kretschmar S. Radiographic detection and characteristic patterns of residual excess cement associated with cement-retained implant restorations: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:151–157.
      1. Pauletto N, Lahiffe BJ, Walton JN. Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:865–868.
      1. 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;23:943–946.
      1. O'Rourke B, Walls AW, Wassell RW. Radiographic detection of overhangs formed by resin composite luting agents. J Dent 1995;23:353–357.
      1. Soares CJ, Santana FR, Fonseca RB, Martins LR, Neto FH. In vitro analysis of the radiodensity of indirect composites and ceramic inlay systems and its influence on the detection of cement overhangs. Clin Oral Investig 2007;11:331–336.
      1. Reis JM, Jorge EG, Ribeiro JG, Pinelli LA, Abi-Rached FO, Tanomaru-Filho M. Radiopacity evaluation of contemporary luting cements by digitization of images. ISRN Dent 2012;2012:704246.
      1. Pette GA, Ganeles J, Norkin FJ. Radiographic appearance of commonly used cements in implant dentistry. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013;33:61–68.
      1. Dentistry: Polymer-based restorative materials. Geneva: ISO International Organization for Standardization; 2009.
      1. 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.
      1. Agar JR, Cameron SM, Hughbanks JC, Parker MH. Cement removal from restorations luted to titanium abutments with simulated subgingival margins. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:43–47.
      1. Altintas SH, Yildirim T, Kayipmaz S, Usumez A. Evaluation of the radiopacity of luting cements by digital radiography. J Prosthodont 2013;22:282–286.
      1. Begoña Ormaechea M, Millstein P, Hirayama H. Tube angulation effect on radiographic analysis of the implant-abutment interface. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:77–85.
      1. Attar N, Tam LE, McComb D. Mechanical and physical properties of contemporary dental luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:127–134.
      1. Callan DP, Cobb CM. Excess cement and peri-implant disease. J Implant Adv Clin Dent 2009;1:61–68.
      1. Wilson TG Jr. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study. J Periodontol 2009;80:1388–1392.
    MeSH Terms
    Aluminum
    Berlin
    California
    Fungi
    Incheon
    National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
    Pennsylvania
    Peri-Implantitis
    Radiographic Image Enhancement
    Metrics
    Share
    Figures
    slide
    slide
    slide
    slide

    1 / 4

    Tables
    slide
    slide

    1 / 2

    PERMALINK