Decementation Rates and the Peri‐Implant Tissue Status of Implant‐Supported Fixed Restorations Retained via Zinc Oxide Cement: A Retrospective 10–23‐Year Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term data on clinical outcomes of restorations attached to implants via zinc oxide (ZnO) cement have been sparse. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to retrospectively investigate decementation rates and peri-implant tissue status of implant-supported fixed restorations retained by ZnO cement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1989 and 2003, 63 partially edentulous patients received 93 implants. Of these, 27 patients received 36 screwed single crowns (SC) and served as a control (C group). The other 36 patients had their restorations cemented using ZnO cement. They were subdivided into a SC group and a fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) group. After between 10 and 23 years (mean: 13.22 ± 3.21), all decementation events and peri-implant soft tissue status were evaluated using patient records. RESULTS: Decementation was assessed in 57 implants supporting 30 SCs and 16 FDPs. Five cases of decementation (8.77%) were recorded after a mean of 9.27 ± 7.05 years (range: 4.81-21.79). In the control group of vertically screwed SCs, five events of screw loosening (13.89%) were recorded in five patients (18.52%) after a mean of 5.84 ± 5.96 years (range: 0.56-15.05) within a 14.30 year observation period. No cases of peri-implantitis were observed in any group. The mean values of periodontal probing depths and bleeding on probing (BOP+) were 3.74 mm and 31.58%, respectively, for ZnO-cemented restorations, versus 3.76 mm and 25%, respectively, for the C group. No significant correlations regarding technical/biologic complications between the groups were detected. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, we conclude that the use of ZnO cement provides sufficient retention of implant-supported fixed restorations over long periods without biologic complications in form of peri-implantitis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".