A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Effect of abutment neck taper and cement types on the amount of remnant cement in cement-retained implant restorations: an study. | LitMetric

Purpose: The present study aims to analyze the effect of abutment neck taper and types of cement on the amount of undetected remnant cement of cement-retained implant prostheses.

Materials And Methods: Three neck taper angles (53°, 65°, 77°) and three types of cement (RMGI: resin-modified glass ionomer, ZPC: zinc phosphate cement, ZOE: zinc oxide eugenol cement) were used. For each group, the surface percentage was measured using digital image and graphic editing software. The weight of before and after removing remnant cement from the abutment-crown assembly was measured using an electronic scale. Two-way ANOVA and Duncan & Scheffe's test were used to compare the calculated surface percentage and weight of remnant cement (α = .05).

Results: There were significant differences in remnant cement surface percentage and weight according to neck taper angles ( < .05). However, there were no significant differences in remnant cement surface percentage and weight on types of cement. No interaction was found between neck taper angles and types of luting cement ( > .05). The wide abutment with a small neck taper angle showed the most significant amount of remnant cement. And the types of luting cement did not influence the amount of residual cement.

Conclusion: To remove excess cement better, the emergence profile of the crown should be straight to the neck taper of the abutment in cement-retained implant restoration.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9259346PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2022.14.3.162DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

neck taper
28
remnant cement
28
cement
16
surface percentage
16
cement-retained implant
12
types cement
12
taper angles
12
percentage weight
12
abutment neck
8
cement types
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!