ArticlePloS one2022
Should the vent hole of posterior implant crowns be placed on the lateral surface? An in vitro study of the hydrodynamic feature of cement extrusion and retention ability.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although placing a vent hole on the occlusal surface of the implant crown can reduce cervical marginal cement extrusion, it has disadvantages. Transferring the hole to the buccal or lingual surface of the posterior implant crown could therefore be an alternative solution. This study investigated the effect of transferring the vent hole to the lateral side of the implant posterior crown on the hydrodynamics of excess cement extrusion and the crown's retention ability. Specially fabricated posterior implant crowns were divided into five groups: crowns with an occlusal hole (OH), occlusal lateral hole (OLH), middle lateral hole (MLH), cervical lateral hole (CLH), and no hole (NH). Each set of implant analog-abutment-crown specimens was wrapped in a polymethylacrylate base. The base of the implant crown was divided into four 90-degree quadrants along the diagonal of the square base with a pen mark. Cement was used to bond the crowns and the abutments, and the weight of cement extrusions at the vent holes and the abutment cervical margins were calculated. The distribution of cement extrusion at the margin was photographed in each quadrant, and the areas of surface coverage of cement extrusion were compared with ImageJ software. Retentive strength was measured as the dislocation force using a universal testing machine. One-way analysis of variance was used for result analysis. The cervical marginal cement extrusions of crowns with lateral holes (OLH, MLH, and CLH) were significantly less than that of NH crowns (P<0.05), but more than that of OH crowns (P<0.05). Subgroup analysis among the lateral hole groups indicated that the higher the position of the lateral hole, the lower the weight of the cement extrusion, and the smaller the total distribution area of cement extrusion. The cement extrusion distribution area was larger in the quadrant with the hole than in those opposite and next to the hole. Retention strength comparison indicated no significant difference between crowns with NH, OH, or lateral holes. Transferring the vent hole of the posterior implant crown to the lateral side could reduce cement extrusion at the cervical margin while reducing retention strength deterioration and the esthetic drawbacks caused by occlusal hole opening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.