{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019658119658119658, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002564102564102564, 'mean_word_length': 5.098958333333333, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Influence of Luting Materials and Methods and the Restoration Surface on the Amount of Cement Remnants in Implant Restorations.

This study aimed to investigate the effects of the luting methods on the amount of cement remnants in implant restorations and to determine the restoration surface with the maximum amount of residual cement. Forty abutments and crowns were divided into four groups as follows: TB group, luting with zinc oxide-eugenol cement; TBV group, luting with zinc oxide-eugenol cement after application of a separating agent over the transmucosal area of the abutment; PI group, luting with methacrylate cement; and PIV group, luting with methacrylate cement after application of a separating agent. After cementation, all the quadrants of the specimens were photographed, and the amount and location of the cement remnants were statistically analyzed (p ≤ 0.05). The amount of cement remnants was significantly smaller in the groups with a separating agent. The type of luting material did not significantly affect the results. Cement remnants were more abundant on the mesial and distal sides than on the buccal and lingual sides of the restoration.