Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 2915  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission




 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 13  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 1679-1681  

Microleakage at implant abutment and prosthesis interface in cemented implant-supported prosthesis


1 Department of Prosthodontics, Patna Dental College and Hospital, Patna, Bihar, India
2 Department of Prosthodontics, Dr D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Pimpri, Pune, India, India
3 Department of Community Medicine, GGS Medical College & Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab, India
4 Interns, Christian Dental College, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
5 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Desh Bhagat Dental College, Mandi Gobindgarh, Punjab, India

Date of Submission17-May-2021
Date of Decision23-May-2021
Date of Acceptance28-May-2021
Date of Web Publication10-Nov-2021

Correspondence Address:
Vishal Gupta
Department of Community Medicine, GGS Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, Punjab
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_405_21

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 


Background: Dental implants have an important role in mainstream dental practice today to restore esthetics. The present study was conducted to evaluate the microleakage at implant abutment and prosthesis interface in cemented implant-supported prosthesis. Materials and Methods: The present study comprised sixty replicas of abutment analog with length 5 mm, width of platform 4.8 mm, and taper 6° which were milled and divided into three groups. In Group I, nickel–chromium copings were fabricated; marginal gap was evaluated with optical microscope and luted with zinc oxide noneugenol cement, Group II with zinc polycarboxylate cement, and Group III with zinc phosphate cement. Microleakage was scored by the method used by Tjan et al. Results: The mean microleakage score in Group I was 2.5, in Group II was 1.9, and in Group III was 1.05. The difference was significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: All cements showed microleakage. Minimum microleakage was seen with zinc phosphate cement than zinc oxide noneugenol cement and zinc polycarboxylate cement.

Keywords: Microleakage, zinc oxide noneugenol cement, zinc polycarboxylate cement


How to cite this article:
Kumari S, Jadhav MS, Gupta V, Isaac TK, Subramanium A, Kumar V. Microleakage at implant abutment and prosthesis interface in cemented implant-supported prosthesis. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2021;13, Suppl S2:1679-81

How to cite this URL:
Kumari S, Jadhav MS, Gupta V, Isaac TK, Subramanium A, Kumar V. Microleakage at implant abutment and prosthesis interface in cemented implant-supported prosthesis. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2021 [cited 2022 Jun 27];13, Suppl S2:1679-81. Available from: https://www.jpbsonline.org/text.asp?2021/13/6/1679/330132




   Introduction Top


Dental implants have an important role in mainstream dental practice today to restore esthetics, contour, occlusion, function, comfort, speech, and health.[1] The fabrication of cement-retained restorations is easier than that of screw-retained restorations because conventional laboratory and clinical prosthodontic techniques are used for making cemented restorations.[2]

The screw-retained restorations are usually more expensive because of the extra components needed such as plastic sleeves, laboratory fixation screws, and the fixation screws themselves.[3]

Nevertheless, the increased cost of the screw-retained restoration that allows for predictable retrievability must be compared to the potential costs of damaging the cemented restoration if biologic or technical complication occurs.[4],[5]

The benefits of screw-retained prosthesis are satisfactory crown retention, cement-free gingival sulcus area, and crown retrievability.[6] There are some complications which include abutment screw loosening, fracture of fastening screw, optimum location of the access hole for precise placement, ceramic chip off around access hole, and fracture of the abutment.[7]

Microleakage is crucial consideration while selecting luting cements.[8] Leakage around crown margins is directly proportional to cement solubility, film thickness, adherence to substrate, dimensional changes, and poor adaptation of the prosthesis with abutment.[9] The present study was conducted to evaluate the microleakage at implant abutment and prosthesis interface in cemented implant-supported prosthesis.


   Materials and Methods Top


The present study comprised sixty replicas of abutment analog with length 5 mm, width of platform 4.8 mm, and taper 6° which were milled and divided into three groups. The study got approval from the institutional review board.

In Group I, nickel–chromium copings were fabricated; marginal gap was evaluated with optical microscope and luted with zinc oxide noneugenol cement, Group II with zinc polycarboxylate cement, and Group III with zinc phosphate cement. After thermocycling, cemented specimens were placed into 0.5% aqueous solution of basic fuchsin solution for 24 h for dye penetration. Copings were longitudinally sectioned, and microleakage scores were evaluated. Microleakage was scored by the method used by Tjan et al. Microleakage scores used were 0 – no microleakage seen on the axial wall of the sectioned specimen, 1 – microleakage seen up to one-third the length on the axial wall of the sectioned specimen, 2 – microleakage seen up to two-third the length on the axial wall of the sectioned specimen, 3 – microleakage seen along the full length of the axial wall of the sectioned specimen, and 4 – microleakage seen on the occlusal surface of the sectioned specimen. Results thus obtained were subjected to statistical analysis using Mann–Whitney U-test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.


   Results Top


[Table 1] shows the distribution of replica of abutment analog in different groups based on the type of luting agent used.
Table 1: Distribution of groups

Click here to view


[Table 2] and [Graph 1] shows that the mean microleakage score in Group I was 2.5, in Group II was 1.9, and in Group III was 1.05. The difference was significant (P < 0.05).
Table 2: Comparison of microleakage

Click here to view




   Discussion Top


In implant dentistry, there is a adhesion between two metallic components instead of the tooth to the metal as in conventional fixed prosthodontics.[10.11] Thus, the selection of luting cements is more diverse and extensive than natural teeth. In addition, the resistance and retention form of implant abutments is much more favorable than natural tooth preparations.[12] Ideal and stable occlusal contacts can be established with cement-retained restorations because there are no occlusal screw access holes.[13] These screw access holes will also interfere with protrusive and lateral excursions, and therefore, anterior guidance may be compromised.[14] The screw-retained restorations where the screw access hole occupies more than 50% of the intercuspal occlusal table require an occlusal restorative material to cover the screw access channel; these restorative materials are susceptible for wearing under functional forces, and so the occlusal contacts will be less preserved than when using cement-retained restorations with intact occlusal surface. Moreover, the difficulty in achieving stable occlusal contacts when using screw-retained restorations because of the presence of restoration material will affect the direction of occlusal loads which will be distributed as lateral forces to the implant instead of being axially directed.[15] The present study was conducted to evaluate the microleakage at implant abutment and prosthesis interface in cemented implant-supported prosthesis.

In the present study, the mean microleakage score in Group I was 2.5, in Group II was 1.9, and in Group III was 1.05. Handa et al.[16] evaluated the microleakage of metallic copings luted with three different commercially available luting cements. The mean microleakage score was least for zinc phosphate cement (1.075 ± 0.85), followed by zinc polycarboxylate cement (1.80 ± 0.23) and most for zinc oxide noneugenol (2.1 ± 0.37). The results of the study were statistically significant. Wenner et al.[14] found evaluated the microleakage of various restorative materials placed in root surfaces. A minimum of twenty freshly extracted single-rooted teeth were used for each combination of restorative materials. Four preparations were made on the root surface and each restored with a different material. After thermocycling in dye, the root was cut transversely in several sections through the restoration, and microscopically examined to record the microleakage at the interface between restorative materials and tooth. Results indicated that fewer composite resin specimens allowed microleakage into dentin as compared with either amalgam or glass ionomer materials.

Bhatnagar et al.[17] assessed, compared, and evaluated the microleakage at the margins of cast metal copings cemented with three luting agents. A comparative study was done to evaluate the ability of three contemporary luting agents to resist microleakage in cemented nickel–chromium complete metal copings cast on prepared molars. The copings were placed back on the respective prepared teeth to check the fit, and marginal adaptation was observed under an optical microscope. Copings with marginal discrepancies of more than 39 μm were rejected, and castings were repeated for accurate marginal fit. The castings were cemented with the three luting agents under study, namely, glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, and resin cement under ideal conditions. The cemented specimens were thermocycled after 24 h between 5°C and 50°C. After thermocycling, the teeth were treated with 50% of silver nitrate solution for 60 min, placed under a 150 watt flood lamp for 5 min to allow complete fixation of any unfixed stain, embedded in clear epoxy resin, and sectioned twice longitudinally. It was concluded from the study that the glass ionomer cement, Ketac Cem showed less microleakage than the resin-modified glass ionomer cement, RelyX Luting 2 and the resin cement, RelyX ARC. The resin cement was associated with a higher degree of microleakage than the glass ionomer cement and the resin-modified glass ionomer cement.


   Conclusion Top


Authors found that all cements showed microleakage. Minimum microleakage was seen with zinc phosphate cement than zinc oxide noneugenol cement and zinc polycarboxylate cement.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: Achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:28-35.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:537-52.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Becker W, Becker BE. Replacement of maxillary and mandibular molars with single endosseous implant restorations: A retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:51-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Michalakis KX, Pissiotis AL, Hirayama H. Cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:545-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: A critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:719-28.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Jokstad A. Osseointegration and Dental Implants. Hoboken: WileyBlackwell Publication; 2008.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Keller W, Bragger U, Mombelli A. Peri-implant micro flora of implants with cemented and screw retained suprastructures. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998;9:209-17.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Pan YH, Ramp LC, Lin CK, Liu PR. Comparison of 7 luting protocols and their effect on the retention and marginal leakage of a cement-retained dental implant restoration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:587-92.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Oyague RC, Turrion AS, Lozano JF, SuarezGarcia MJ. Vertical discrepancy and microleakage of laser sintered and vacuum cast implant supported structures luted with different cements. J Dent 2012;40:123-30.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Bhandari S, Aras M, Chitre V. An in vitro evaluation of the microleakage under complete metal crowns using three adhesive luting cements. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2012;12:65-71.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC, Sorensen JA. Microleakage of various cementing agents for full cast crowns. Dent Mater 2005;21:445-53.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Nascimento CD, Barbosa RE, Issa JP, Watanabe E, Ito IY, Albuquerque RF. Bacterial leakage along the implant abutment interface of pre-machined or cast components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;37:177-80.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Gonzalez NA, Kasim NH, Aziz RD. Microleakage testing. Ann Dent Univ Malaya 1997;4:31-7.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Wenner KK, Fairhurst CW, Morris CF, Hawkins IK, Ringle RD. Microleakage of root restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1988;117:825-8.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Arora SJ, Arora A, Upadhyaya V, Jain S. Comparative evaluation of marginal leakage of provisional crowns cemented with different temporary luting cements: In vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016;16:42-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
16.
Handa M, Marya P, Gupta V, Chopra S. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of metallic copings luted with three different commercially available luting cements: An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2021;21:57-65.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
17.
Bhatnagar V, Sardar CS, Ram SM, Mehta A. An evaluation of microleakage of metallic copings cemented with three luting agents: A stereomicroscopic in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2007;7:81-4.  Back to cited text no. 17
  [Full text]  



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed208    
    Printed6    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded38    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal