J. Compos. Sci., Vol. 7, Pages 128: Zinc Oxide Non-Eugenol Cement versus Resinous Cement on Single Implant Restoration: A Split-Mouth Study

J. Compos. Sci., Vol. 7, Pages 128: Zinc Oxide Non-Eugenol Cement versus Resinous Cement on Single Implant Restoration: A Split-Mouth Study

Journal of Composites Science doi: 10.3390/jcs7030128

Authors: Rodolfo Reda Alessio Zanza Valentina Bellanova Shankargouda Patil Shilpa Bhandi Dario Di Nardo Luca Testarelli

Cement-retained implant restorations still represents a widely used prosthetic solution today, considering the simple execution, the possibility of correcting the implant axis according to the dental axis and an extremely satisfactory aesthetic. The objective of the study is to evaluate whether resin-based cements are actually more aggressive towards the peri-implant tissue compared to zinc oxide cements. In the present study 18 patients (8 males and 10 females) were examined with a split-mouth design. The follow-up period for patients after delivery of the cement-retained single crown is a maximum of 48 months. A total of 36 implants were inserted and monitored during this period. Clinical and radiographic tests were carried out on all 36 implants, with constant re-evaluation, as well as the occurrence of some prosthetic or biological problems that brought the patient back to visit. The results for both cements were in line with the indications of the respective manufacturers. During the observational period, no implant failed, with a survival rate of 100% on these 36 implants. In conclusion, it is possible to establish that the number of decementations of the cement-retained crowns cemented with Temp Bond non-eugenol was higher, but not statistically significant. In contrast, the biological complications per implant and the MBL were significantly higher in the cement-retained crowns cemented with Implacem.