Accuracy of digital bitewing radiographs with and without applying horizontal tube shift in the diagnosis of residual excess cement around dental implants: An in vitro study.

Zahra Dalili Kajan; Hamid Neshandar Asli; Negar Khosravifard; Maryam Bidvand; Elahe Rafiei

doi:10.17126/joralres.2021.007

Zahra Dalili Kajan Dental Sciences Research Center, Dept of Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0726-380X
Hamid Neshandar Asli Dental Sciences Research Center, Dept of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3883-1195
Negar Khosravifard Dental Sciences Research Center, Dept of Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6746-5991
Maryam Bidvand Dentist, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Private clinic, Rasht, Iran.
Elahe Rafiei Biostatistician, Vice-chancellor of Research and Technology, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran. http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3220-3884

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2021.007

Abstract

Purpose: This study was designed to evaluate the diagnostic value of digital Bitewing (BW) radiographs with and without horizontal tube shift in detecting Residual excess cement (REC) on the proximal and non-proximal surfaces of implant restorations. Material and Methods: Eight mandibular models were fabricated with two implants placed on each side in the premolar and first molar positions. Excess cement was applied to either proximal or non-proximal surfaces of the restorations intentionally during the process of crown cementation. BW radiographs with and without applying horizontal tube shift were acquired. Three maxillofacial radiologists were asked to determine the presence and location of REC in the radiographs. Sensitivity and specificity of the radiographic technique were assessed according to the restoration surface that contained REC. Results: Sensitivity of BW radiographs was 100% for the detection of REC on the proximal surfaces and 41-18, 80% on the non-proximal surfaces. Specificity of the technique was 85.71%-100% for the proximal surfaces and 75-94. 12% for the non-proximal areas. Specificity of the radiographic method was generally greater than its sensitivity for the non-proximal surfaces while in the proximal areas, the two variables had quite similar values. Conclusion: Digital BW radiography is generally more useful for detection of REC on the proximal surfaces. Higher specificity of this technique for the bucco-lingual surfaces suggests more reliability of the negative diagnoses in the non-proximal areas.

References

[1]. Simonis P, Dufour T, Tenenbaum H. Long-term implant survival and success: a 10-16-year follow-up of non-submerged dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(7):772-7.

[2]. Lee A, Okayasu K, Wang HL. Screw- versus cement-retained implant restorations: current concepts. Implant dent 2010; 19: 8-15.

[3]. Shadid R, Sadaqa N. A comparison between screw and cement retained implant prostheses. A literature review. J Oral Implantol. 2012; 38: 298-307.

[4]. Wittneben JG, Millen C, Bragger U. Clinical performance of screw versus cement retained fixed implant supported reconstructions- a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Suppl; 29: 84-98.

[5]. Korsch M, Walther W. Peri-implantitis associated with type of cement: a retrospective analysis of different types of cement and their clinical correlation to the peri-implant tissue. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 17: e434-e 43.

[6]. Sailer I, Muhlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hammerle C, Schneider D. Cemented and screw retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implant Res 2012.Suppl 6; 23: 163-201.

[7]. 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.

[8]. Korsch M, Robra BP, Walther W. Cement associated signs of inflammation: retrospective analysis of the effect of excess cement on peri-implant tissue. Int J Prosthodont 2015; 28: 11-8.

[9]. Pauletto N, Lahiffe BJ, Walton JN. Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14: 865-8.

[10]. Gapski R, Neugeboren N, Pomeranz AZ, Reissner MW. Endosseous implant failure influenced by crown cementation: a clinical case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008; 23: 943-6.

[11]. Quirynen M, De Soete M, van Steenberghe D. Infectious risks for oral implants: a review of the literature. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002; 13: 1-19.

[12]. Wadhwani C, Hess T, Faber T, Pineyro A, Chen CS. A descriptive study of the radiographic density of implant restorative cements. J Prosthet Dent. 2010; 103: 295-302.

[13]. Wadhwani C, Rapoport D, La Rosa S, Hess T, Kretschmar S. Radiographic detection and characteristic patterns of residual excess cement associated with cement-retained implant restorations: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2012; 107: 151-7.

[14]. Wilson Jr TG. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study. J Periodontol.2009; 80: 1388-92.

[15]. Haak R, Wicht MJ, Noack MJ. Conventional, digital and contrast-enhanced bitewing radiographs in the decision to restore approximal carious lesions. Caries Res. 2001; 35: 193-9.

[16]. O'Rourke B, Walls AW, Wassell RW. Radiographic detection of overhangs formed by resin composite luting agents. J Dent. 1995; 23: 353-7.

[17]. Soares CJ, Santana FR, Fonseca RB, Martins LR, Neto FH. In vitro analysis of the radiodensity of indirect composites and ceramic inlay systems and its influence on the detection of cement overhangs. Clin Oral Investig. 2007; 11: 331-6.

[18]. Kajan ZD, Asli HN, Taramsari M, Chai SMF, Hemmaty YB. Comparison of height and width measurements of mandibular bone in various head orientations using cone beam computed tomography: an experimental in vitro study. Oral Radiol. 2015; 31: 28-35.

[19]. Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2008; 1068-69.

[20]. Wang Y, Zhang Y, Miron RJ. Health, maintenance and recovery of soft tissues around implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016; 18: 618-34.

[21]. Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Peciuliene V. The influence of margin location on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22(12):1379-84.

[22]. 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(1):71-6.

[23]. Antonijevic D, Obradovic-Djuricic K, Rakocevic Z, Medigovic I. In vitro radiographic detection of cement overhangs on cement-retained implant restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28(4):1068-75.

[24]. 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.

[25]. Pette GA, Ganeles J, Norkin FJ. Radiographic appearance of commonly used cements in implant dentistry. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2013; 33: 61-8.

[26]. Mansour A, Ercoli C, Graser G, Tallents R, Moss M. Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002;13(4):343-8.