(PO-044) Preventing Cement Extrusion During Implant Crown Cementation Using Retraction Cord

Author: Jung I. Yoon, M.M.S. – Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine School of Dental Medicine
Author: Thomas Y. Yoon, D.D.S., MS, MHSA – Assistant Dean of Clinical Education, Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine School of Dental Medicine
Author: Robert Sparks, D.M.D.
Author: Matthew Imbrogno, D.M.D.
Author: Alexandra I. Manibo, D.D.S. – Director of Patient Care Services, Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine School of Dental Medicine
Author: Thanhphuong Dinh, D.M.D.MHSA M.Ed. – Assistant Dean of Curriculum and Assessment, Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine School of Dental Medicine
Submitter: Jung I. Yoon, M.M.S. – Lake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine School of Dental Medicine

Objective: Evaluating the effectiveness of single- and split-dual retraction cord technique against using no cord to prevent extruded cement during implant crown cementation

Methods: Typodonts with abutment-level implant and silicone soft tissue model were used. Stents were fabricated with an access hole directly over the location of the abutment screw. These stents were used to retrieve the abutment-crown units after cementation. Retraction cord(s) with pre-cut length were packed around the gingival embrasure of the abutment using either single- or split-dual cord technique. 3-D printed implant crowns were cemented with 3M™ RelyX™ Luting Plus Cement. The amount of extruded cement on the mesial and distal surfaces of the abutment was recorded in millimeters (mm). Twenty-five data sets were collected for each of the following: the split-dual cord technique, the single-cord technique, and using no cord (control).

Results: The presence of retraction cords (single- or split-dual) showed better results than no cord (control). On the mesial surface, the average amount of apical migration of cement was 1.17 mm in the control group, 0.24mm in the single-cord group, and 0.57 mm in the split-dual cord group. Two-sample t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed a statistical significance (p=0.000) between no cord vs. split-dual cord, no cord vs. single-cord, and single-cord vs. split-dual cord. On the distal surface, the average amount of apical migration was 1.27 mm, 0.55mm, and 0.50 mm for the control, single-cord, and split-dual cord groups respectively. Statistical significance (p=0.000) was found between no cord vs. split-dual cord, and no cord vs. single-cord (p=0.000). However, there was no significance between single-cord vs. split-dual cord (p=0.541).

 

Conclusion: Regardless of the technique, the use of a retraction cord when seating cement-retained implant crown is effective in preventing cement extruding into the gingival embrasure of the implant abutment.