Biological interaction, esthetics, handling, and loss rate of temporary luting cements - a clinical single-blind randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate three temporary luting cements in terms of their restoration loss rates, biological interactions, esthetic properties, and handling characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 75 adults requiring fixed prosthodontics voluntarily participated in a single-blind, randomized controlled trial. After preparation, temporary restorations were luted with a randomly selected temporary luting cement (either Provicol QM Plus (PQP), Bifix Temp (BT), or Provicol QM Aesthetic (PQA)). Clinical examinations were performed one to two weeks after cementation. The following criteria were evaluated: tooth vitality, percussion, hypersensitivity, gingival bleeding, odor formation, esthetics, cement handling, removability, cleanability, and retention loss. Antagonistic teeth served as controls. Statistical analysis was performed using the paired t-test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson's chi-square and Fisher's exact test, where appropriate. RESULTS: The overall loss rate of temporary restorations was 16.0%, showing no cement-specific differences. Postoperative hypersensitivity occurred in 8% of cases regardless of cement type. Esthetic impairment was reported by 31% of the PQP-fixed restorations, compared with 4.0% and 4.2% of the BT and PQA-bonded restorations. Cement application was reported to be easy in 100% of cases, excess removal in 88-96%, depending on the cement used. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of luting material affects the esthetic appearance of a temporary restoration and should be considered, particularly in restorations in esthetically demanding areas. No significant differences between the cements were identified regarding biocompatibility, handling, and loss rate. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Translucent cements can help to reduce color interferences, resulting in a more appealing appearance of the temporary restoration.

Cemented vs. press-fit humeral stems: a matched cohort analysis at a mean follow-up of 10 years.

BACKGROUND: Although cementation of humeral stems has long been considered the gold standard for anatomic shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA), cementless, or press-fit, fixation offers a relatively cheaper and less demanding alternative, particularly in the setting of a revision procedure. However, this approach has been accompanied by concerns of implant loosening and high rates of radiolucency. In the present study, we performed a propensity-matched comparison of clinical and patient-reported outcomes between cemented and cementless fixation techniques for aTSA. We hypothesized that cemented fixation of the humeral component would have significantly better implant survival while providing comparable functional outcomes at final follow-up. METHODS: This study was a retrospective comparison of 50 shoulders undergoing aTSA: 25 using cemented humeral fixation vs. 25 using press-fit humeral fixation. Patients in the 2 groups were propensity matched according to age, sex, and preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score. Primary outcome measures included range of motion (ROM) (forward elevation, external rotation, internal rotation), patient-reported outcomes (ASES, Simple Shoulder Test [SST], visual analog scale [VAS]), and implant survival. RESULTS: At baseline, the 2 fixation groups were similar in regard to age, sex, body mass index, preoperative ASES score, and surgical indication. Mean follow-up was 11.7 ± 4.95 years in the cemented cohort and 9.13 ± 3.77 years in the press-fit cohort (P = .045). Both groups demonstrated significant improvements postoperatively in all included ROM and patient-reported outcomes. However, press-fit patients reported significantly better VAS, ASES, and SST scores. Mean VAS pain score was 1.1 ± 1.8 in press-fit patients and 3.2 ± 3.0 in cemented patients (P = .005). The mean ASES score was 87.7 ± 12.4 in press-fit patients and 69.5 ± 22.7 in cemented patients (P = .002). Lastly, the mean SST score was 9.8 ± 3.1 in press-fit patients and 7.7 ± 3.7 in cemented patients (P = .040). Both fixation techniques provided lasting implant survivorship with only a single revision operation in each of the cohorts. CONCLUSION: Herein, we provide a propensity-matched, long-term comparison of patients receiving anatomic shoulder arthroplasty stratified according to humeral stem fixation technique. The results of this analysis illustrate that both types of humeral fixation techniques yield durable and significant improvements in shoulder function with similar rates of survival at 10 years of follow-up.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with proximal bone loss: a biomechanical comparison of partially vs. fully cemented humeral stems.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate amount of cementation at the time of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with significant proximal bone loss or resection is unknown. Extensive cementation of a humeral prosthesis makes eventual revision arthroplasty more challenging, increasing the risk of periprosthetic fracture. We analyzed the degree of subsidence and torque tolerance of humeral components undergoing standard cementation technique vs. our reduced polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) protocol. Reduced cementation may provide sufficient biomechanical stability to resist physiologically relevant loads, while still permitting a clinically attainable torque for debonding the prosthesis. METHODS: A total of 12 cadaveric humeri (6 matched pairs) underwent resection of 5 cm of bone distal to the greater tuberosity. Each pair of humeri underwent standard humeral arthroplasty preparation followed by either cementation using a 1.5-cm PMMA sphere at a location 3 cm inferior to the porous coating or standard full stem cementation. A 6-degree-of-freedom robot was used to perform all testing. Each humeral sample underwent 200 cycles of abduction, adduction, and forward elevation while being subjected to a physiologic compression force. Next, the samples were fixed in place and subjected to an increasing torque until implant-cement separation or failure occurred. Paired t tests were used to compare mean implant subsidence vs. a predetermined 5-mm threshold, as well as removal torque in matched samples. RESULTS: Fully and partially cemented implants subsided 0.49 mm (95% CI 0.23-0.76 mm) and 1.85 mm (95% CI 0.41-3.29 mm), respectively, which were significantly less than the predetermined 5-mm threshold (P < .001 and P < .01, respectively). Removal torque between fully cemented stems was 45.22 Nm (95% CI 21.86-68.57 Nm), vs. 9.26 Nm (95% CI 2.59-15.93 Nm) for partially cemented samples (P = .021). Every fully cemented humerus fractured during implant removal vs. only 1 in the reduced-cementation group. The mean donor age in our study was 76 years (range, 65-80 years). Only 1 matched pair of humeri belonged to a female donor with comorbid osteoporosis. The fractured humerus in the partially cemented group belonged to that donor. CONCLUSION: Partially and fully cemented humeral prostheses had subsidence that was significantly less than 5 mm. Partially cemented stems required less removal torque for debonding of the component from the cement mantle. In all cases, removal of fully cemented stems resulted in humeral fracture. Reduced cementation of humeral prostheses may provide both sufficient biomechanical stability and ease of future component removal.

Periprosthetic Fractures: A Rising Tide of Hip Arthroplasty Failure Noted in the American Joint Replacement Registry and the Preventative Role of Cemented Stems.

BACKGROUND: This investigation examined cemented femoral component use in total hip arthroplasty (THA) and its impact on the incidence of periprosthetic fractures (PPFx), a common failure mode in THA. The study leverages data from the American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) to assess trends in cemented femoral component usage over time, its association with PPFx rates, and compares the survivorship and 90-day complication rates between cemented and cementless femoral component THAs. METHODS: Primary THAs, captured in the AJRR, in patients aged 65 years and older from 2012 to 2021 were analyzed. Variables considered included age, sex, race, region, teaching status, year, Charlson comorbidity index, and institution bed size. Analysis compared fixation types for THA on all-cause linked revision and PPFx. Logistic regression models analyzed the odds ratios for all-cause linked revision and PPFx for any follow-up time as well as for 90-day revision. The models were adjusted for the listed variables. RESULTS: During the study period, the rate of cement utilization as a percentage of primary THAs performed and reported to the AJRR increased from 4.4 to 8.3%. The rate of THA failure from PPFx increased from 11.4 to 33.3%. When both fixation groups were compared in the univariate analysis, there was a statistically significant difference in all demographic variables (P < .001). To account for this, multivariable logistic regression models were applied. In our models, cemented stems showed a 54.4% (odds ratio: 0.456; 95% confidence interval: 0.347 to 0.599; P < .0001) and 65.8% (odds ratio: 0.342; 95% confidence interval: 0.237 to 0.493; P < .0001) lower risk of PPFx linked and PPFx early linked revision, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Periprosthetic fractures are becoming a leading failure mode for THAs in the AJRR. Given cemented fixation's relative resistance to this failure mode compared to cementless fixation, we should consider increasing the utilization of this technique.

A Comparison of the Periprosthetic Fracture Rate of Cemented and Cementless Mobile Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasties: An Analysis of Data From the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic fractures are rare but serious complications of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Although cementless UKA has a lower risk of loosening than cemented, there are concerns that tibial fracture risk may be higher given the reliance on interference fit for primary stability. The risk of fracture and the effect of surgical fixation are currently unknown. We compared the periprosthetic fracture rate following cemented and cementless UKA surgery. METHODS: A total of 14,122 medial mobile-bearing UKAs (7,061 cemented and 7,061 cementless) from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episodes Statistics database were propensity score-matched. Cumulative fracture rates were calculated and Cox regressions were used to compare fixation groups. RESULTS: The three-month periprosthetic fracture rates were similar (P = .80), being 0.10% in the cemented group and 0.11% in the cementless group. The fracture rates were highest during the first three months postoperatively, but then decreased and remained constant between one and 10 years after surgery. The one-year cumulative fracture rates were 0.2% (confidence interval [CI]: 0.1 to 0.3) for cemented and 0.2% (CI: 0.1 to 0.3) for cementless cases. The 10-year cumulative fracture rates were 0.8% (CI: 0.2 to 1.3) and 0.8% (CI: 0.3 to 1.3), respectively. The hazard ratio during the whole study period was 1.06 (CI: 0.64 to 1.77; P = .79). CONCLUSIONS: The periprosthetic fracture rate following mobile bearing UKA surgery is low, being about 1% at 10 years. There were no significant differences in fracture rates between cemented and cementless implants after matching. We surmise that surgeons are aware of the higher theoretical risk of early fracture with cementless components and take care with tibial preparation. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: III.

Influence of provisional cementation on the stability of adhesively bonded resin-based composite crowns.

PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of temporary cementation and subsequent bonding on the durability during in-vitro aging-simulation and fracture force of resin-based composite crowns. METHODS: Identical molar crowns (n=48, n=8 per group) were milled from resin-based composites and temporarily cemented and finally bonded to human molars. To simulate temporary application, crowns were cemented either with zinc-oxide-eugenol-cement (Tempbond) or with eugenol free zinc-oxide-cement (Tempbond NE). For a first simulation of a long-term provisional clinical application, thermal cycling, and mechanical loading (TCML 2 x 600 x 5°C-55°C, 2 minutes each cycle, distilled water, 240,000 cycles at 50N) was performed. After TCML all crowns were removed, cleaned, and luted either by using etch-and-rinse technique (Vococid, Futurabond U, Bifix QM) or a self-adhesive (Bifix SE) cementation system. A second thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML 2 x3,000 x 5°C/55°C, 2 minutes each cycle, distilled water, 1.2 x 106 at 50N) was accomplished to simulate 5 years of clinical application. To assess the survival of the crowns, the failure rates during TCML were documented. As controls, crowns were included without prior provisional cementation. After TCML all crowns were loaded to failure. Failure was categorized as fracture of the crown and partial loosening of the crown. RESULTS: All crowns survived both TCML procedures without any failures. The fracture values after TCML varied between 3,538.0 ± 1,041.2 N and 4,612.0 ± 801.5 N without significant (P= 0.146) differences between the individual groups. No correlation was found between fracture force and type of provisional cementation (zinc-oxide-eugenol vs. zinc-oxide: Pearson: -0.063/P= 0.672) or type of bonding (adhesive vs. self-adhesive: Pearson: -0.151/ P= 0.307). No different failure pattern was observed between the tested systems. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Regardless of the type of temporary cementation, there was no effect on the in-vitro performance or strength of the final permanently bonded crowns. Resin-based crowns might be bonded with adhesive or self-adhesive systems even after previous temporary cementation.

Effect of cement type on vertical marginal discrepancy and residual excess cement in screwmentable and cementable implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the vertical marginal discrepancy (VMD) and residual excess cement (REC) of cementable and screwmentable monolithic zirconia crowns cemented with different types of cement. Abutments were attached to 40 implant analogues. Crowns were created using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing technology from monolithic zirconia blocks, either with or without a screw access hole (SAC). Crowns created both ways were split into two groups and cemented with resin and zinc polycarboxylate cement under a 5-kg weight. VMD and REC values were evaluated using an X20 zoom stereomicroscope. Data were analysed using two-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni test. According to the two-way ANOVA results, REC measurements differed significantly in the crown design and cement groups. However, whilst VMD values were significantly different in both crown design groups, there was no significant difference in the cement groups. According to the Bonferroni test results, the highest REC (157.241 ± 44.29 µm) and VMD (68.052 ± 16.19 µm) values were found in the crowns without SAC and cemented with zinc polycarboxylate. Screwmentable crowns are more effective than cementable crowns in reducing REC and VMD. Whilst polycarboxylate cement reduces VMD in screwmentable crowns, resin cement is more suitable for cementable crowns.

Impact of fixation method on femoral bone loss: a retrospective evaluation of stem loosening in first-time revision total hip arthroplasty among two hundred and fifty five patients.

PURPOSE: Implant loosening represent the most common indication for stem revision in hip revision arthroplasty. This study compares femoral bone loss and the risk of initial revisions between cemented and uncemented loosened primary stems, investigating the impact of fixation method at primary implantation on femoral bone defects. METHODS: This retrospective study reviewed 255 patients who underwent their first revision for stem loosening from 2010 to 2022, receiving either cemented or uncemented stem implants. Femoral bone loss was preoperatively measured using the Paprosky classification through radiographic evaluations. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated the survival probability of the original stem, and the hazard ratio assessed the relative risk of revision for uncemented versus cemented stems in the first postoperative year and the following two to ten years. RESULTS: Cemented stems showed a higher prevalence of significant bone loss (type 3b and 4 defects: 32.39% vs. 2.72%, p < .001) compared to uncemented stems, which more commonly had type 1 and 2 defects (82.07% vs. 47.89%, p < .001). In our analysis of revision cases, primary uncemented stems demonstrated a 20% lower incidence of stem loosening in the first year post-implantation compared to cemented stems (HR 0.8; 95%-CI 0.3-2.0). However, the incidence in uncemented stems increased by 20% during the subsequent years two to ten (HR 1.2; 95%-CI 0.7-1.8). Septic loosening was more common in cemented stems (28.17% vs. 10.87% in uncemented stems, p = .001). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated a modestly longer revision-free period for cemented stems within the first ten years post-implantation (p < .022). CONCLUSION: During first-time revision, cemented stems show significantly larger femoral bone defects than uncemented stems. Septic stem loosening occurred 17.30% more in cemented stems.

Effect of a modified laminate veneer preparation design on absolute margin discrepancy and marginal overhang.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Veneer preparation designs impact veneer accuracy. However, whether a modified design could reduce absolute margin discrepancy and marginal overhangs is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate whether a modified veneer preparation design enhances the absolute margin discrepancy and marginal overhang. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The absolute margin discrepancy and the marginal overhang of 3 different veneer preparation designs on a typodont tooth (n=20): feather edge, shoulder, and shoulder with wings were measured. The feather edge design was prepared first and subsequently modified to create the shoulder and shoulder with wings preparations. Ceramic veneers were fabricated using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacture with each veneer assessed for fit before cementation. Ten specimens were cut vertically, and 10 were cut horizontally in each group. The absolute margin discrepancy and marginal overhangs were measured for each cross-section with scanning electron microscopy. Descriptive data analysis and hypothesis testing were conducted using the nonparametric Kruskal Wallis test (α=.05). RESULTS: On the vertical sections, the shoulder with wings preparation had the best absolute margin discrepancy and overhang. The design was also best for mesial overhang and mesial absolute margin discrepancy when measuring horizontally. CONCLUSIONS: The shoulder with wings preparation design produced the smallest cervical absolute margin discrepancy and overhang. This design also produced absolute margin discrepancy and overhangs comparable with those of the shoulder design in the proximal areas.

Quality of cementing in hemiarthroplasty for elderly neck of femur fractures does not affect short term functional outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Cemented hip hemiarthroplasty is a routine surgical option for elderly neck of femur (NOF) fractures. It is uncertain if quality of cementing has any effect on functional outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine if the quality of cementing would affect short term functional outcomes in elderly neck of femur fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 637 single-centre cemented hip hemiarthroplasties from 2014 to 2021 was performed. Each post-operative radiograph was double-read by 2 authors (1 resident and 1 fellowship trained surgeon) to determine quality of cementing via the Barrack grading. Disagreements were reviewed by a third reader. Cement grades were grouped as Optimal (Barrack grade A-B), or Suboptimal (Barrack grade C-D). Functional outcomes were compared using mobility (community- or home-ambulant), assistance required for mobility, and Modified Barthel Index (MBI). Surgical parameters were compared between the groups. RESULTS: There were 429 Optimal and 208 Suboptimal cases of cementing performed. There was no difference in age, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, mobility, assistance required, and MBI score pre-operatively (p > 0.05). Patients in the "Suboptimal" cementing group had a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) score (p < 0.001). At 1 year post-operation, there was no significant difference between "Optimal" and "Suboptimal" cementing with regards to the proportion of community ambulators (30.2% vs. 25.7%, p = 0.252), walking independence (independent walkers (19.8% vs.17.3%), independent walkers with aids (41.3%vs.42.1%), walker with caregiver assistance (29.2%vs.33.7%), wheelchair-bound (9.6%vs.6.9%), p = 0.478), and distribution of MBI score (81.1%vs.82.2% achieving MBI > 60, p = 0.767). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with postoperative delirium (7.9% vs. 5.8, p = 0.324) or 1-year mortality rates (3.5% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.685). Except for stem design (12.2% tapered vs 20.1% collared; p = 0.011), no other surgical parameters were significantly different. The kappa value for inter-reader agreement was "substantial" at 0.727 (95% CI 0.682-0.772) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Quality of cementing in cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for elderly NOF fractures does not affect the short-term functional outcomes. In low demand patients and patients at risk of BCIS, optimal cementing may not be necessary to achieve similar short-term functional outcomes. Further studies should be conducted to determine the effect of sub-optimal cementing on long-term functional outcomes.

Equivalent revision rates and patient reported outcomes with routine use of a short (125mm) cemented stem for total hip arthroplasty compared to a standard length (150mm) cemented stem. A two surgeon series of 1335 patients.

BACKGROUND: Routine total hip arthroplasty (THA) using a short cemented stem as compared with a standard length cemented stem may have benefits in terms of stress distribution, bone preservation, stem subsidence and ease of revision surgery. Two senior arthroplasty surgeons transitioned their routine femoral implant from a standard 150 mm Exeter V40 cemented stem to a short 125 mm Exeter V40 cemented stem for all patients over the course of several years. We analysed revision rates, adjusted survival, and PROMS scores for patients who received a standard stem and a short stem in routine THA. METHODS: All THAs performed by the two surgeons between January 2011 and December 2021 were included. All procedures were performed using either a 150 mm or 125 mm Exeter V40 stem. Demographic data, acetabular implant type, and outcome data including implant survival, reason for revision, and post-operative Oxford Hip Scores were obtained from the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR), and detailed survival analyses were performed. Primary outcome was revision for any reason. Reason for revision, including femoral or acetabular failure, and time to revision were also recorded. RESULTS: 1335 THAs were included. 516 using the 150 mm stem and 819 using the 125 mm stem. There were 4055.5 and 3227.8 component years analysed in the standard stem and short stem groups respectively due to a longer mean follow up in the 150 mm group. Patient reported outcomes were comparable across all groups. Revision rates were comparable between the standard 150 mm stem (0.44 revisions/100 component years) and the short 125 mm stem (0.56 revisions/100 component years) with no statistically significant difference found (p = 0.240). CONCLUSION: Routine use of a short 125 mm stem had no statistically significant impact on revision rate or PROMS scores when compared to a standard 150 mm stem. There may be benefits to routine use of a short cemented femoral implant.

Effect of cement spacer on fit accuracy and fracture strength of 3-unit and 4-unit zirconia frameworks.

BACKGROUND: Cement spacer is essential for compensating deformation of zirconia restoration after sintering shrinkage, allowing proper seating and better fracture resistance of the restoration. Studies assessing the effect of cement spacer on fit accuracy and fracture strength of zirconia frameworks are missing in the literature. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different cement spacer settings on fit accuracy and fracture strength of 3-unit and 4-unit zirconia frameworks. METHODS: Sixty standardized stainless-steel master dies were manufactured with 2 prepared abutments for fabricating 3-unit and 4-unit zirconia frameworks. The frameworks were assigned into 6 groups (n = 10) according to cement spacer setting (30 µm, 50 µm, and 80 µm) as follows: 3-unit frameworks; 3u-30, 3u-50, 3u-80, and 4-unit frameworks; 4u-30, 4u-50, and 4u-80. The frameworks were assessed for fit accuracy with the replica method. The specimens were cemented to their corresponding dies, and the fracture strength was measured in a universal testing machine. The Weibull parameters were calculated for the study groups and fractured specimens were inspected for failure mode. Two-Way ANOVA followed by Tukey test for pairwise comparison between study groups (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The cement spacer had a significant effect on both fit accuracy and fracture strength for 3-unit and 4-unit frameworks. The 50 µm spacer had significantly better fit accuracy followed by 80 µm, and 30 µm spacers. Both 50 µm and 80 µm spacers had similar fracture strength, and both had significantly better strength than 30 µm spacer. CONCLUSIONS: For both 3-unit and 4-unit zirconia frameworks, 50 µm cement spacer can be recommended over 30 µm and 80 µm spacers for significantly better fit accuracy and adequate fracture strength.

The effect of restorative material selection and cementation procedures on the durability of endocrowns in the anterior teeth: an in-vitro study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the fracture resistance and failure modalities of anterior endocrown restorations fabricated employing diverse ceramic materials, and bonded using various cementation methodologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty maxillary central incisors were divided into two main groups based on the ceramic materials used; GroupI (Zir): zirconia endocrwons (Zolid HT+, Ceramill, Amanngirrbach) and GroupII (E-Max): e-max endocrowns (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent). Both groups were further split into two subgroups depending on the cementation protocols; subgroup IA "ZirMDP": endocowns cemented with MDP primer + MDP resin cement, subgroup IB (ZirNon-MDP): cemented with MDP primer + non-MDP resin cement, subgroup IIA (E-maxMDP): cemented with MDP primer + MDP resin cement, subgroup IIB (E-maxNon-MDP): cemented with MDP primer + non-MDP resin cement. (n = 10/subgroup). Endocrowns were manufactured using CAD/ CAM. Teeth were subjected to 10,000 thermal cycles. The fracture test was performed at 45o with a palatal force direction until the fracture occurred. Test results were recorded in Newton. The failure mode was examined using a stereomicroscope. A One-way ANOVA test was utilized to compare different groups regarding fracture strength values. Tukey`s Post Hoc was utilized for multiple comparisons. RESULTS: The comparative analysis of fracture strength across the diverse groups yielded non-significant differences, as indicated by a p-value exceeding 0.05. Nonetheless, an observable trend emerged regarding the mode of failure. Specifically, a statistically significant prevalence was noted in fractures localized within the endocrown/tooth complex below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) across all groups, except for Group IIB, "E-max Non-MDP," where fractures within the endocrown/tooth complex occurred above the CEJ. CONCLUSIONS: Combining an MDP-based primer with an MDP-based resin cement did not result in a significant effect on the anterior endocrown fracture strength. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Regardless of the presence of the MDP monomer in its composition, adhesive resin cement achieved highly successful fracture strength when used with MDP-based ceramic primers. Additionally, ceramic materials exhibiting elastic moduli surpassing those of dentin are discouraged due to their propensity to induce catastrophic fractures within the tooth structure.

A conservative approach to localize loose implant screw through cemented crown: an in vitro experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Retrieval of cement-retained implant-supported restorations is intriguing in cases of screw loosening. Detecting the estimated size of the screw access hole (SAH) could decrease destruction to the prosthesis and preserve the crown. OBJECTIVES: To precisely localize loose implant screws through cemented crowns to reduce crown damage after screw loosening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in vitro study, 60 cement-retained implants supported 30 zirconia-based, and 30 ceramics fused to metal (CFM) lower molar crowns were invented, and each was subdivided into three subgroups (10 each). In group I (AI/BI) (control), SAH was created with the aid of orthopantomography (OPG). In contrast, in group II (zirconia-crown), SAH was created with the aid of CBCT + 3D printed surgical guide with a 2 mm metal sleeve in subgroups IIA/IIIA and CBCT + MAR was used to develop SAH in subgroups IIB/IIIB. SEM and Micro-CT scanned the SAH openings to determine the diameter of the hole, cracking, chipping, and chipping volume. RESULTS: Regarding the effect of plane CBCT and CBCT + MAR on prepared crowns, a highly significant association between group I with group II (p = 0.001) and group III (p = 0.002) was detected. Regarding the cracking of SAH, significant differences between the zirconium crown and CFM restoration (p = 0.009) were found, while for the chipping, no significant association was seen between groups (p = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: CBCT, either as a plane CBCT or with MAR, significantly improved the accuracy of drilling the screw channel and decreased injury to the existing restoration and abutment, aiding in better localization of SAH in loosened implant abutment screws.

The distribution of marginal excess cement of implant-supported vented and non-vented zirconia crowns with and without cleaning procedures.

PURPOSE: To investigate the distribution of marginal excess cement in vented and non-vented crowns and evaluate the effect of clinical cleaning procedures on the reduction of excess cement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty models with implant analogs in the position of the right maxillary first molar were divided into four groups (n = 10/group, vented/non-vented crowns with or without cleaning procedures). The abutment finish lines were placed 1 mm below the artificial gingiva buccally, mesially, and distally and at the gingival level palatally. A standardized amount (20 mg) of resin cement was applied in a thin layer to the intaglio surface of zirconia vented and non-vented crowns. The excess cement was removed by a dental explorer in groups with cleaning procedures. The distribution (area and depth) of the marginal excess cement was measured at each quadrant (buccal, mesial, palatal, and distal) for all study samples. The data were analyzed using descriptive and analytical statistics (ɑ = 0.05). RESULTS: The area and depth values of the excess cement in each quadrant in the vented group were significantly smaller than that in the non-vented group, both with and without cleaning (p < 0.001). Cleaning procedures significantly reduced the area of excess cement in both vented and non-vented groups (all, p < 0.001 except for p < 0.05 at the buccal aspect of the vented group). The depth of excess cement in the vented group was significantly decreased with cleaning in the buccal quadrant compared with that without cleaning (p < 0.01). However, the depth of excess cement of the non-vented group was significantly increased with cleaning in all quadrants compared with that without cleaning (all, p < 0.001 except for p < 0.05 at the distal aspect). CONCLUSIONS: Crown venting significantly reduced the area and depth of the marginal excess cement in vitro. Cleaning procedure with a dental explorer significantly reduced the area of marginal excess cement in vitro; however, the excess cement can be pushed deeper in the non-vented group.

Clinical guidelines for posterior semidirect composite resin restorations: a case report with a 17-month follow-up.

Patients are always looking for conservative, esthetic, and long-lasting dental restorations, and the technique used directly influences the longevity of the treatment. The location of the restoration in the mouth and the extent of the decay influence the treatment choice. The larger the dimensions of the cavity preparation, the greater the difficulties in restoring the tooth using direct techniques. The semidirect technique, when indicated, can achieve satisfactory results. It is a relatively easy procedure, consisting of tooth preparation to receive an indirect restoration, fabrication of an alginate impression, fabrication of the composite resin restoration on a flexible cast, cementation, removal of excess cement, and occlusal adjustment. The aim of this case report is to present a viable alternative to direct and indirect restorations for posterior teeth with extensive decay. The article describes the extraoral semidirect technique for fabricating a composite resin restoration, highlighting its indications and discussing advantages and disadvantages.

Cemented is not superior to cementless total knee arthroplasty for complications: a propensity score matched analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There is continued debate regarding the survivorship and revision rate of cementless versus cemented total knee arthroplasty (TKA) prostheses. This includes the assessment of early revision surgery due to aseptic loosenings and periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Studies have not always taken into account the impact of comorbidities, such as diabetes, obesity, and tobacco. Therefore, we compared revisions in a large population of patients undergoing cemented or cementless TKAs at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years. METHODS: A review of an administrative claims database was used to identify patients undergoing primary TKA, either cementless (n = 8,890) or cemented (n = 215,460), from October 1, 2015 to October 31, 2020. Revision surgery for PJI and aseptic loosening were identified with diagnosis and associated procedural codes at 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years and then compared between groups. A propensity matched-analysis was performed for age, sex, Charles Comorbidity Index (CCI) > 3, alcohol abuse, tobacco use, obesity, and diabetes. Chi square tests assessed statistical significance of differences in the matched cohorts using odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A P < 0.05 was defined as statistically significant. RESULTS: Cementless TKA was associated with similar revisions rates due to PJIs at 90 days (OR, 1.04, 95% CI 0.79-1.38, p = 0.83), 1 year (OR, 0.93, 95% CI 0.75-1.14, p = 0.53, and 2 years (OR, 0.87, 95% CI 0.73-1.05, p = 0.17) in comparison to the cemented TKA cohort. The odds ratio of revision due to aseptic loosening was similar as well at 90 days (OR, 0.67, 95% CI 0.34-1.31, 0.31), 1 year (OR, 1.09, 95% CI 0.73-1.61, p = 0.76), and 2 years (OR, 1.00, 95% CI 0.73-1.61, p = 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: This study found a comparable risk of PJI and aseptic loosening in cementless and cemented TKA when controlling for several comorbidities, such as tobacco, diabetes, and alcohol. Therefore, with proper patient selection, cementless TKAs can be performed with expectation of low risks of infections and aseptic loosenings.

Periprosthetic fracture following arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture: is a cemented stem protective?

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF) carry significant morbidity following arthroplasty for femoral neck fracture (FNF). This study assessed fracture complications following arthroplasty for FNF and the effect of cement fixation of the femoral component on intraoperative and post-operative PFF. METHODS: Between February 2014 and September 2021, 740 patients with a FNF who underwent arthroplasty were analyzed for demographics, surgical management, use of cement for fixation of the femoral component, and subsequent PFF. Variables were compared with Mann-Whitney or Chi-square as appropriate. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess independent risk factors associated with intraoperative or post-operative PFF. RESULTS: There were 163 THAs (41% cemented) and 577 HAs (95% cemented). There were 28 PFFs (3.8%): 18 post-operative and 10 intraoperative. Fewer post-operative PFFs occurred with cemented stems (1.63% vs. 6.30%, p = 0.002). Mean time from surgery to presentation with post-operative PFF was 14 months (0-45 months). Mean follow-up time was 10.3 months (range: 0-75.7 months). In multivariate regression, use of cement and THA was independently associated with decreased post-operative PFF (cement: OR 0.112, 95% CI 0.036-0.352, p < 0.001 and THA: OR 0.249, 95% CI 0.064-0.961, p = 0.044). More intraoperative fractures occurred during THA (3.68% vs. 0.69%, p = 0.004) and non-cemented procedures (5.51% vs. 0.49%, p < 0.001). In multivariate regression, use of cement was protective against intraoperative fracture (OR 0.100, CI 0.017-0.571, p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a FNF treated with arthroplasty, cementing the femoral component is associated with a lower risk of intraoperative and post-operative PFF. Choice of procedure may be based on patient factors and surgeon preference.

Cemented vs cementless stems for revision arthroplasties due to Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fracture.

PURPOSE: According to Vancouver classification, B2 type fractures are most often treated with removal of the loose stem and implantation of a long stem that bypasses the fracture site. However, there is a controversy about the stem fixation that should be used: cemented or cementless. Hence, this study aims to compare cemented and cementless stems in prosthetic revision due to Vancouver B2 (VB2) periprosthetic hip fracture. METHODS: A retrospective study was done including all the patients treated with stem exchange due to VB2 periprosthetic hip fracture in a tertiary hospital between 2015 and 2022. Patients were divided into two groups according to the stem fixation used: cemented or cementless. Functional outcomes, hospital stay, surgical time, complication rate, and mortality were compared between the two groups of patients. RESULTS: Of the 30 included patients, 13 (43.4%) were treated with cementless stems and 17 (56.7%) with cemented stems. There were no statistically significant differences in age, gender, anesthesia risk scale (ASA) or functional capacity prior to the intervention. Patients treated with cementless stems had a higher complication and reintervention rate than those treated with cemented stems: 62 and 45% versus 34 and 6% (p = 0.035; p = 0.010), respectively. Furthermore, in the group of cementless stems a higher proportion of non-union was found (53.8% vs. 17.6%; p = 0.037). Also, the hospital stay (33 vs. 24 days; p = 0.037) and the time to full weight-bearing (21 days vs. 9 days; p < 0.001) were longer in the cementless stem group. CONCLUSION: Cemented fixation in stem revision due to Vancouver B2 periprosthetic hip fracture could be an optimal option with faster recovery which could decrease the rate of complications and reintervention, without compromising the fracture healing and patient mortality. Thus, this option can be considered when an anatomical reduction can be obtained, especially in elderly patients with multiple comorbidities in which a less aggressive surgical option should be considered.

[Study on the pressure on ceramic veneers during cementation]. / Izuchenie velichiny davleniya na keramicheskie viniry vo vremya ikh tsementirovaniya.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is measuring the magnitude and determining the method of finger pressure exerted by doctors on ceramic veneers during their fixation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A simulation model was designed in order to measure the volume of finger pressure. Veneers were produced for 2 central incisors. Doctors alternately placed veneers on the model and applied pressure on them for 20 seconds simulating the clinical stage of cementing. The operator recorded the maximum readings of the scales and entered the result on the research protocol. In addition, it was recorded which finger the doctor exerts on the veneer during its cementing to ensure a tight fit: thumb or index finger. RESULTS: The values obtained during cementation of 54% doctors ranged up to 1 kg, 27% of doctors from 1 to 2 kg and only 19% more than 2 kg. 80% of doctors applied the main pressure on the veneer using their thumb, while the pressure force was 1.4 kg. For those doctors who pressed the veneer to the tooth with their index finger, the impact value was 0.8 kg. CONCLUSION: The finger pressure on the veneer during cementation applied by dentists varies, the average pressure on the veneers was about 1.5 kg. The amount of pressure on cement during laboratory tests of cements for fixing veneers differs from clinical values many times. The development of a veneers fixation protocol, taking into account the conducted research, will ensure a reliable and accurate fit of the veneer at the stage of its cementing.