Comparison of the effects of cement removal from zirconia and titanium abutments: An in vitro study

Minocycline plus Zinc Oxide Eugenol Cement Might Be A Promising Alternative for Acute Pulpitis

Objective

To investigate the clinical effect of minocycline plus zinc oxide eugenol cement in the treatment of acute pulpitis and its effect on the levels of HIF-1α, Bcl-2, and tumor necrosis factor α.

Methods

A total of 286 patients with acute pulpitis who were treated in our hospital from January 2019 to October 2020 were recruited and assigned (1 : 1) via random number table method to receive either minocycline (control group) or minocycline plus zinc oxide eugenol cement (study group). Outcome measures included treatment effect, tooth mobility, tooth percussion pain score, hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF)-1α and B-lymphocyte tumor (Bcl)-2 positive rate, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α).

Results

Minocycline plus zinc oxide eugenol cement was associated with significantly lower scores of teeth mobility and percussion pain versus minocycline alone (p < 0.05). Minocycline plus zinc oxide eugenol cement resulted in a significantly higher treatment efficacy (97.20%) versus minocycline alone (72.73%) (p < 0.05). Minocycline plus zinc oxide eugenol cement was associated with significantly lower positive rates of HIF-1α and Bcl-2 and lower levels of TNF-α versus minocycline alone (p < 0.05). The patients receiving minocycline plus zinc oxide eugenol cement showed significantly lower visual analogue scale (VAS) scores and faster pain relief versus those given minocycline alone (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Minocycline plus zinc oxide eugenol cement offers a viable alternative for acute pulpitis as it mitigates the pain of patients, alleviates inflammatory responses, and lowers the positive rate of HIF-1α and Bcl-2, so it is worthy of clinical promotion.

Comparison of the residual cement on custom computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing titanium and zirconia abutments: A preliminary cohort study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Clinical studies comparing the occurrence and quality of residual cement between custom zirconia and custom titanium abutments with subgingival margins are scarce.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical study was to assess the difference in the amount of residual cement between custom zirconia and titanium abutments with a 1-mm subgingival margin.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eighty participants were randomized to receive either a custom zirconia abutment with a bonded titanium insert or a custom titanium abutment with a 1-mm subgingival margin on a posterior bone-level implant. Monolithic lithium disilicate crowns with a screw-access hole were cemented to abutments randomly with either a resin-modified glass ionomer cement or a resin cement. After cementation, the crown-abutment assemblies were removed and photographed from the mesial, buccal, distal, and lingual of the specimen to record the residual cement. The length along the abutment margin of each aspect of the assembly was measured. The surface area of the residual cement (SA) and the surface area of the residual cement per unit length of margin (SA_P) were calculated. Results for the groups were compared with the Fisher exact test, the Friedman test, and the Mann-Whitney U test (α=.05).

RESULTS

The median (lower quartile, upper quartile) of SA and SA_P for the custom zirconia abutment with a bonded titanium insert was 1.9 (0.5, 3.9) mm² and 0.086 (0.032, 0.02) mm², respectively, and for the custom titanium abutment, the values were 2.9 (1.3, 5.1) mm² and 0.138 (0.062, 0.239) mm², respectively. No significant difference was found between the custom zirconia abutments with bonded titanium inserts and titanium abutments for SA (P=.075) and SA_P (P=.083) with the Mann-Whitney U test. No significant difference was found in residual cement between the 4 aspects of the abutment (SA: P=.852; SA_P: P=.954) with the Friedman test and between the 2 types of cement (SA: P=.447; SA_P: P=.878) with the Mann-Whitney U test.

CONCLUSIONS

A similar amount of subgingival residual cement was recorded around the abutment-crown assembly, regardless of the abutment material or cement type used.

Evaluation of the peri-implant tissues in the esthetic zone with prefabricated titanium or zirconia abutments: A randomized controlled clinical trial with a minimum follow-up of 7 years

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Long-term clinical studies are lacking on the influence of the type of abutment, titanium or zirconia, on peri-implant tissues.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate peri-implant tissues with titanium or zirconia abutments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 26 single-tooth implant-supported prostheses in 14 participants were analyzed. They received either a titanium abutment with a metal-ceramic crown (TAG) or a zirconia abutment with a ceramic crown (ZAG). Data were collected immediately, at 5 months, and at a minimum of 7 years after crown delivery. The success rate, plaque and bleeding indexes, bleeding on probing, white and pink esthetic scores, and the relationships of the gingival phenotype with the pink esthetic score were analyzed. Statistical analyses were conducted with the t test for paired and independent data (α=.05).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 95.2 ±2.6 months, showing an implant success rate of 96.7%. No statistically significant differences were found between TAG and ZAG among the time intervals evaluated for plaque or bleeding indexes (P>.05). A statistically significant difference was found for peri-implant probing depths in the mid-buccal sites between the groups at all the time intervals evaluated (TAG, P=.008; ZAG, P=.021): TAG showed an increase between 5 months (3.65 ±0.93 mm) and over 7 years (4.47 ±1.32 mm); and ZAG showed a reduction (5 months=5.22 ±1.71 mm; over 7 years=4.25 ±1.28 mm) in values. For the pink (PES) and white esthetic score (WES), ZAG (PES: immediately=6.33 ±1.41; 5 months=7.44 ±1.81; over 7 years=8.25 ±1.03; WES: immediately=7.67 ±1.50; over 7 years=8.38 ±0.74) showed higher mean values than TAG (PES: immediately=5.94 ±2.35; 5 months=6.53 ±2.15; over 7 years=7.44 ±1.81; WES: immediately=7.00 ±1.17; over 7 years=8.35 ±1.27) (P<.05). Statistically significant differences were found for gingival phenotype and for PES in TAG (P=.031), and the participants with thick phenotype showed higher PES in the 3 time intervals studied.

CONCLUSIONS

Zirconia abutments exhibited better results than titanium abutments in terms of the peri-implant tissues. Moreover, in those with a thin phenotype, zirconia provided improved gingival esthetics.

Effect of titanium or zirconia implant abutments on epithelial attachments after ultrasonic cleaning

Zirconia is widely employed as a material during dental implant work because of its superior esthetics. This study sought to evaluate the impact of titanium or zirconia implant abutments on epithelial attachments after ultrasonic cleaning. These implants were inserted into the extraction socket of rat maxillary first molars. Then, the length of the horseradish peroxidase (HRP) reaction was measured. In addition, titanium and zirconia disks were cleaned using an ultrasonic scaler, surface morphology changes were observed, and the number of epithelial cell attachments to the surface was measured. Ultimately, the surfaces of the titanium disks were easier to damage than those of the zirconia ones. There was no difference in the number of epithelial cell attachments between the two materials with the ultrasonic cleaning. The length of the HRP reaction was shorter on the zirconia implant abutment surface than on the titanium one after mechanical cleaning. In conclusion, zirconia is harder than titanium and a better choice for use in the epithelial tissue attachment. Zirconia is more suitable as a material for implant abutments than titanium.