The influence of the emergence profile on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant reconstructions.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether or not one of two emergence profile designs (concave or convex) is superior to the other in terms of remaining cement following cementation of reconstructions on individualized abutments and careful cement removal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A central incisor with a single implant-supported reconstruction was selected as a model. Six types of abutments (n = 10) with two different emergence profile designs (concave (CC) and convex (CV)) and three crown-abutment margin depths (epimucosal, 1.5 mm submucosal, 3 mm submucosal) were fabricated through a CAD/CAM procedure. Lithium disilicate reinforced ceramic crowns were cemented with chemically polymerized resin cement. A blinded investigator attempted to remove all cement excess. Thereafter, the entire reconstruction was unscrewed and analyzed for the overall amount and the depth of cement excess. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to investigate differences between groups. When more than two groups were compared between each other, a Bonferroni correction of the P value was performed. RESULTS: Concave abutments presented significantly more cement remnants than CV abutments when the entire abutment area of the epimucosal margin groups was evaluated (CC0 mm: mean 2.31 mm2 (SD 0.99) vs. CV0 mm: mean 1.57 mm2 (SD 0.55); P = 0.043). A statistically significant increase in remnants was detected when the crown-abutment margin was located more submucosally for every abutment studied (0 mm vs. 1.5 mm: P < 0.000, 0 mm vs 3 mm: P < 0.000, 1.5 mm vs. 3 mm: P < 0.000). The buccal quadrant demonstrated the least, whereas the oral and interdental quadrants showed the greatest amount of cement excess. CONCLUSIONS: Concave emergence profile abutments and deep crown-abutment margin positions increased the risk of cement excess. Oral and interdental areas are more prone to cement remnants than other surface areas.

A prospective, randomized, triple-blind comparison of articaine and bupivacaine for maxillary infiltrations.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical anesthetic efficacy of 0.5% bupivacaine and 4% articaine (both with 1:200.000 adrenaline) for anterior maxillary infiltration in healthy volunteers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A triple-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial was carried out in 20 volunteers. A supraperiosteal buccal injection of 0.9 ml of either solution at the apex of the lateral incisor was done in 2 appointments separated 2 weeks apart. The following outcome variables were measured: latency time, anesthetic efficacy (dental pulp, keratinized gingiva, alveolar mucosa and upper lip mucosa and tissue) and the duration of anesthetic effect. Hemodynamic parameters were monitored during the procedure. RESULTS: Latency time recorded was similar for both anesthetic solutions (p>0.05). No statistically significant differences were found in terms of anesthetic efficacy for dental pulp, keratinized gingiva or alveolar mucosa. Articaine had a significant higher proportion of successful anesthesia at 10 minutes after infiltration in lip mucosa and lip skin (p=0.039). The duration of anesthesia was 336 minutes for bupivacaine and 167 minutes for articaine. (p<0.001). No significant hemodynamic alterations were noted during the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Articaine and bupivacaine exhibited similar anesthetic efficacy for maxillary infiltrations. The duration of anesthesia was longer with the bupivacaine solution, but lip anesthesia was better with articaine.