Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Oral Health
Published in: BMC Oral Health 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Evaluation of concordance between CAD/CAM and clinical positions of abutment shoulder against mucosal margin: an observational study

Authors: Jan K. Pietruski, Anna Skurska, Anna Bernaczyk, Robert Milewski, Maria Julia Pietruska, Peter Gehrke, Małgorzata D. Pietruska

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

While working on CAD/CAM-customized abutments, the use of standard impression copings with a circular diameter produces inconsistency within the emergence profile. It may begin with a collapse of the supra-implant mucosa during impression taking, then lead to a computer-generated mismatch of the position and outline of the abutment shoulder, and consequently result in a compromised outcome of anticipated treatment. The aim of the study was to compare the virtual and clinical positions of the abutment shoulder in relation to the mucosal margin after the abutment delivery.

Methods

Conventional open-tray impression takings followed uncovering surgery. Master casts were scanned with a desktop scanner. Clinical examinations took place after abutment’s insertion and temporization (T1) and prior to cementation of the definitive crown (T2). The distances between the abutment shoulder and marginal soft tissue were measured intraorally in four aspects and juxtaposed with those on the virtual model.

Results

The study evaluated 257 dental implants and CAD/CAM-customized abutments. As T1 and T2 showed, there was a positive correlation between the virtually designed abutment shoulder position and matching clinical location relative to the mucosal margin. In 42.1% of cases, the distance between the mucosal margin and the abutment shoulder did not change. It increased in 36.3% of cases while a decrease occurred in 21.6% of them.

Conclusions

Computer-set position of the abutment shoulder in relation to the mucosal margin can be predictably implemented in clinical practice.
Literature
1.
Priest G. Virtual-designed and computer-milled implant abutments. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2005;63(9 Suppl 2):22–32.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Papazian S, Morgano SM. A laboratory procedure to facilitate development of an emergence profile with custom implant abutment. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;79:232–4.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Gapski R, Neugeboren N, Pemeraz AZ, Reissner MW. Endosseous implant by crown cementation: a clinical case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008;23:943–6.PubMed
4.
Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Linkeviciene L, Maslova N, Puriene A. The influence of the cementation margin position on the amount of undetected cement. A prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:71–6.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Wasiluk G, Chomik E, Gehrke P, Pietuska M, Skurska A, Pietruski J. Incidence of undetected cement on CAD/CAM monolithic zirconia crowns and customized CAD/CAM implant abutments. A prospective case series. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:774–8.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont. 2015;24:313–21.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Shah K, Yilmaz B. A technique to transfer the emergence profile contours of a provisional implant crown to the definitive impression. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(2):e15–7.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Lops D, Bressan E, Cea N, Sbricoli L, Guazzo R, Scanferla M, Romeo E. Reproducibility of buccal gingival profile using a custom pick-up impression technique: a 2-year prospective multicenter study. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2016;28:43–55.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, Zwahlen M, Thoma DS. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl. 6):2–21.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:119–30.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Pietruski J, Pietruska M, Kerstein R, Osorio J. A novel technique of impression making of CAD-CAM custom abutments when fabricating multi-unit implant prostheses. J Implant Adv Clin Dent. 2013;5:21–32.
13.
Makigusa K. Histologic comparison of biologic width around teeth versus implants: the effect of bone preservation. J Implant Reconstr Dent. 2009;1:21–4.
14.
Kan JYK, Rungcharassaeng K, Umezu K, Kois JC. Dimensions of peri-implant mucosa: an evaluation of maxillary anterior single implants in humans. J Periodontol. 2003;73:557–62.CrossRef
15.
Goodacre CJ, Kan JYK, Rungcharassaeng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81:537–52.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Jemt T. Regeneration of gingival papillae after single-implant treatment. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1997;17:327–33.
17.
Jemt T. Restoring the gingival contour by means of provisional resin crowns after single-implant treatment. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1999;19:21–9.
18.
Cooper L, Felton AD, Kugelberg CF, et al. A multicenter 12-months evaluation of single-tooth implants restored 3 weeks after 1-stage surgery. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16:182–92.PubMed
19.
Bassetti M, Kaufmann R, Salvi GE, Sculean A, Bassetti R. Soft tissue grafting to improve the attached mucosa at dental implants: a review of the literature and proposal of a decision tree. Quintessence Int. 2015;46:499–510.PubMed
20.
Scarano A, Piattelli M, Vrespa S, Caputi S, Piattelli A. Bacterial adhesion on titanium nitride-coated and uncoated implants: an in vivo human study. J Oral Implantol. 2003;29:80–5.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Groessner-Schreiber B, Hannig M, Duck A, Griepentrog M, Wenderoth DF. Do different implant surfaces exposed in the oral cavity of humans show different biofilm compositions and activities? Eur J Oral Sci. 2004;112:516–22.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Annunziata M, Oliva A, Basile MA, et al. The effects of titanium nitride-coating on the topographic and biological features of TPS implant surfaces. J Dent. 2011;39:720–8.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Kim YS, Shin SY, Moon SK, Yang SM. Surface properties correlated with the human gingival fibroblasts attachment on various materials for implant abutments: a multiple regression analysis. Acta Odontol Scand. 2015;73:38–47.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Chien CC, Liu KT, Duh JG, Chang KW, Chung KH. Effect of nitride film coatings on cell compatibility. Dent Mater. 2008;24:986–93.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Apachitei I, Lonyuk B, Fratila-Apachitei LE, Zhou J, Duszczyk J. Fatigue response of porous coated titanium biomedical alloys. Scr Mater. 2009;61:113–6.CrossRef
26.
Ketabchi A, Weck A, Variola F. Influence of oxidative nanopattering and anodization on the fatigue restistance of commercially pure titanium and Ti-6Al-4V. J Biomed Mater Res. 2015;103B:563–71.CrossRef
27.
Costa M, Voorwald H, Pitagin W, Guimaraes V, Cioffi M. Evaluation of shot peening on the fatigue strength of anodized Ti-6Al-4V alloy. Mater Res. 2006;9:107–9.CrossRef
28.
Linkevicius T, Puisys A, Vindasiute E, Linkeviciene L, Apse P. Does residual cement around implant-supported restorations cause peri-implant disease? A retrospective case analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:1179–84.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Weber HP, Kim DM, Ng MW, Hwang JW, Fiorellini JP. Peri-implant soft-tissue health surrounding cement- and screw-retained implant restorations: a multi-center, 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17:375–9.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Benic GI, Scherrer D, Sancho-Puchades M, Thoma DS, Hammerle CHF. Spectrophotometric and visual evaluation of peri-implant soft tissue color. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:192–200.CrossRefPubMed
31.
32.
Monaco C, Evangelisti E, Scotti R, Mignani G, Zucchelli G. A fully digital approach to replicate peri-implant soft tissue contours and emergence profile in the esthetic zone. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;27:1511–4.CrossRef
33.
Lee JH. Intraoral digital impression for fabricating a replica of an implant-supported interim prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115:145–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of concordance between CAD/CAM and clinical positions of abutment shoulder against mucosal margin: an observational study
Authors
Jan K. Pietruski
Anna Skurska
Anna Bernaczyk
Robert Milewski
Maria Julia Pietruska
Peter Gehrke
Małgorzata D. Pietruska
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0534-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Oral Health 1/2018 Go to the issue

Case report

Diverticulum of the buccal mucosa: a rare case report and review of the literature

Research article

Association between tooth loss and cognitive impairment in community-dwelling older Japanese adults: a 4-year prospective cohort study from the Ohasama study

Research article

Comparative effectiveness of school-based caries prevention: a prospective cohort study

Research article

Spatial analysis of the death associated factors due oral cancer in Brazil: an ecological study

Research article

Disparities in untreated caries among children and adults in the U.S., 2011–2014

Research article

Patient awareness/knowledge towards oral cancer: a cross-sectional survey