Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35076562›Full record

ReviewMethods and protocols2022

A Systematic Review of Cementation Techniques to Minimize Cement Excess in Cement-Retained Implant Restorations.

Rodolfo Reda, Alessio Zanza, Andrea Cicconetti, Shilpa Bhandi, Renzo Guarnieri, Luca Testarelli, Dario Di Nardo

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Methods and protocols, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rodolfo RedaDepartment of Oral and Maxillo Facial Sciences, University of Rome La Sapienza, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1532-6524
Alessio ZanzaDepartment of Oral and Maxillo Facial Sciences, University of Rome La Sapienza, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2062-8140
Andrea CicconettiDepartment of Oral and Maxillo Facial Sciences, University of Rome La Sapienza, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Shilpa BhandiDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45412, Saudi Arabia.
Renzo GuarnieriDepartment of Oral and Maxillo Facial Sciences, University of Rome La Sapienza, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1449-8340
Luca TestarelliDepartment of Oral and Maxillo Facial Sciences, University of Rome La Sapienza, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3904-3000
Dario Di NardoDepartment of Oral and Maxillo Facial Sciences, University of Rome La Sapienza, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-5054-0828
Sapienza University of Rome · ITJazan University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe most used types of retention of implant-supported prostheses are screw-retained or cement-retained restorations. The advantages and disadvantages of both have been identified by various authors over the years. However, cement-retained implant crowns and fixed partial dentures are among the most used types of restorations in implant prostheses, due to their aesthetic and clinical advantages. When cemented prostheses are made on implants, the problem of cement residues is important and often associated with biological implant pathologies. The objective of this research was to establish to what extent the techniques to reduce excess cement really affect the volume of cement residues. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis review was written following the PRISMA statement; a detailed search was carried out in three different electronic databases-PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. The inclusion criteria were prospective clinical studies, with at least 10 participants per group, and with at least 6 months of the follow-up period.

resultsThere have been many proposals for techniques supposed to reduce the amount of excess cement in the peri-implant sulcus and on the prosthetic components, but of these, which are exceptional in their in vitro capabilities, very few have been clinically validated, and this represents the real limitation and a great lack of knowledge regarding this topic. Three articles met the inclusion criteria, which were analyzed and compared, to obtain the information necessary for the purposes of the systematic review. DISCUSSION: Extraoral cementation can reduce the excess cement, which, after a normal excess removal procedure, is, nevertheless, of such size that it does not affect the possibility of peri-implant pathologies developing. All these studies concluded that a small amount of cement residue is found in the gingival sulcus, and using eugenol-free oxide cements, the residues were only deposited on the metal surfaces, with a better peri-implant tissues health.

conclusionDespite the limitations of this study, it was possible to carefully analyze these characteristics and obtain valuable suggestions for daily clinical practice. Resinous cements are considered, due to the free monomers present in them, toxic for the soft tissues. The provisional zinc-oxide cements, also eugenol-free, represent the ideal choice. The different grades of retentive forces provided by these cements do not seem to have clinical effects on the decementation of restorations.

Indexed as

cementation techniquecement excesschamferperi-implantitisshoulder

Identifiers

PMID35076562
PMCPMC8788496
OpenAlexW4206663528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.