Statement of problem

Clinical studies comparing the occurrence and quality of residual cement between custom zirconia and custom titanium abutments with subgingival margins are scarce.

Purpose

The purpose of this clinical study was to assess the difference in the amount of residual cement between custom zirconia and titanium abutments with a 1-mm subgingival margin.

Material and methods

Eighty participants were randomized to receive either a custom zirconia abutment with a bonded titanium insert or a custom titanium abutment with a 1-mm subgingival margin on a posterior bone-level implant. Monolithic lithium disilicate crowns with a screw-access hole were cemented to abutments randomly with either a resin-modified glass ionomer cement or a resin cement. After cementation, the crown-abutment assemblies were removed and photographed from the mesial, buccal, distal, and lingual of the specimen to record the residual cement. The length along the abutment margin of each aspect of the assembly was measured. The surface area of the residual cement (SA) and the surface area of the residual cement per unit length of margin (SA_P) were calculated. Results for the groups were compared with the Fisher exact test, the Friedman test, and the Mann-Whitney U test (α=.05).

Results

The median (lower quartile, upper quartile) of SA and SA_P for the custom zirconia abutment with a bonded titanium insert was 1.9 (0.5, 3.9) mm² and 0.086 (0.032, 0.02) mm², respectively, and for the custom titanium abutment, the values were 2.9 (1.3, 5.1) mm² and 0.138 (0.062, 0.239) mm², respectively. No significant difference was found between the custom zirconia abutments with bonded titanium inserts and titanium abutments for SA (P=.075) and SA_P (P=.083) with the Mann-Whitney U test. No significant difference was found in residual cement between the 4 aspects of the abutment (SA: P=.852; SA_P: P=.954) with the Friedman test and between the 2 types of cement (SA: P=.447; SA_P: P=.878) with the Mann-Whitney U test.

Conclusions

A similar amount of subgingival residual cement was recorded around the abutment-crown assembly, regardless of the abutment material or cement type used.

中文翻译：

---

定制计算机辅助设计和计算机辅助制造钛和氧化锆基台上残留水泥的比较：初步队列研究

问题陈述

比较定制氧化锆和定制钛基台与龈下边缘残留水泥的发生和质量的临床研究很少。

目的

这项临床研究的目的是评估定制氧化锆和钛基台与 1 毫米龈下边缘之间残留水泥量的差异。

材料与方法

80 名参与者被随机分配接受带有粘合钛插入物的定制氧化锆基台或在后骨水平种植体上带有 1 毫米龈下边缘的定制钛基台。使用树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀或树脂水门汀随机将带有螺钉孔的单片二硅酸锂全冠粘接到基台上。粘接后，取出冠-基台组件并从标本的近中、颊侧、远端和舌侧拍照，以记录残留的粘接剂。测量了沿组件每个方面的基台边缘的长度。计算剩余水泥表面积（SA）和每单位边缘长度剩余水泥表面积（SA_P）。将各组的结果与 Fisher 精确检验、Friedman 检验、

结果

对于带有粘合钛嵌件的定制氧化锆基台，SA 和 SA_P 的中位数（下四分位数，上四分位数）分别为 1.9 (0.5, 3.9) mm ²和 0.086 (0.032, 0.02) mm ²，对于定制钛基台来说, 值分别为 2.9 (1.3, 5.1) mm ²和 0.138 (0.062, 0.239) mm ²。使用 Mann-Whitney U 测试的 SA ( P =.075) 和 SA_P ( P =.083) 的钛基台与结合钛嵌件的定制氧化锆基台之间没有显着差异。基台 4 个方面的残留水泥无显着差异（SA：P =.852；SA_P：P=.954) 与弗里德曼测试和两种类型的水泥 (SA: P =.447; SA_P: P =.878) 与 Mann-Whitney U 测试。

结论

无论使用何种基台材料或水泥类型，在基台-牙冠组件周围都记录到类似数量的龈下残留水泥。