Online ISSN: 2515-8260

Comparative Evaluation Of The Marginal Fit Of Combination Implant Crown And Cement Retained Conventional Crown– An In Vitro Study

Main Article Content

1Dr. Neha Srivastava Sahai, 2Dr. Vinod Viswanathan, 3Dr. Srishti Madhav, 4Dr. Ibadat Jamil, 5Dr.Himanshu Tiwari, 6Dr. Sneha Pal

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the marginal gap of combination implant crown (having access channel on occlusal surface) and conventional cement retained crown by means of stereomicroscope. Materials & Methods: A total of 30 standardized implant crowns were fabricated on 30 implant abutments attached to two implants. Of which, 15 crowns were combination implant crowns and 15 were conventional cement-retained crowns and were grouped as, Group 1: Implant received 15 abutments and 15 combination implant crowns were fabricated for each abutment. Group 2: Implant received 15 abutments and 15 conventional cement-retained crowns were fabricated for each abutment. Crowns were cemented on implant abutment using type I glass ionomer cement and the marginal fit was evaluated by means of a digital camera attached to a stereomicroscope adjusted to magnification level of 40X. Marginal gap was evaluated on all the four surfaces namely mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual of crown. Three measurements on each aspect of the cemented crown, comprising of twelve measurements were recorded after cementation. Measurement for each crown was averaged to determine the mean marginal discrepancy of both the groups. Statistical Analysis: Descriptive statistics included calculation of means and standard deviation. Data distribution was assessed for Normality using Shapiro-Wilk test. Student’s t-test was used for paired samples for intragroup comparison. Spearman’s correlation coefficient was calculated to assess the relationship between the scores given by the dentists to each crown for assessing its marginal discrepancy. A correlation is strong or positive if the values range from 0.7 to 1. All values were considered statistically significant for a value of p<0.05.

Article Details