Margin depth and excess cement: what the studies show
A custom abutment lets the finish line sit at or slightly below the gingiva for easier cementation and hygiene. Why a shallow margin matters:
| Study | Design | Main finding |
| Linkevicius et al., 2011 | In vitro, margins from 1 mm supragingival to 3 mm subgingival | Residual cement after cleaning increased as margins were placed deeper. |
| Linkevicius et al., 2013 | Prospective clinical, 53 single implant crowns | Deeper margins left more undetected cement. Radiographs showed remnants mesially in 4 of 53 cases (7.5%) and distally in 6 of 53 (11.3%). |
| Wilson, 2009 | Endoscopic, 42 implants with peri-implant disease | Excess cement at 34 of 42 implants (81%); 30 days after removal, 74% showed no signs of inflammation. |
A retrospective analysis by Linkevicius et al. (2013) found peri-implant disease at 62 of 73 implants with cement remnants (85%); in patients with a history of periodontitis, every implant with remnants developed peri-implantitis. On the prescription, state the margin depth you want for each surface (for example, equigingival lingually, 0.5 mm subgingival facially).
Cemented or screw-retained on a custom abutment
A systematic review by Wittneben et al. (2014) found no significant difference in 5-year survival between cemented (96.03%) and screw-retained (95.55%) reconstructions, although screw-retained ones showed fewer technical and biological complications overall. For a single crown on a custom abutment there are two routes:
- Intraoral cementation: when the implant axis exits facially or through a cusp, where an access hole would weaken the crown or show.
- Crown with an access hole, bonded to the abutment extraorally: cement is cleaned on the bench before the unit is screwed in, and the restoration stays retrievable. The protocol is in our article on hybrid abutment crowns on a titanium base.
If you want an access hole, note it on the prescription and discuss it with us before design, since its position depends on the implant axis.
Cementing intraorally: limiting residual cement
- Use a copy abutment. In a crossover RCT by Andrijauskas et al. (2021), the median residual cement area was 1.39% with rubber dam and 0.58% with retraction cord plus a copy abutment (excess cement is expressed extraorally before seating).
- Do not rely on radiographs. On zirconia abutments, an in vitro study (Vindasiute-Narbute et al., 2023) could not remove all cement in any specimen, and in 95% of cases the remnants were not detectable radiographically.
- Cement type matters. In the same study, resin-modified glass ionomer left 7.4% more residue than resin cement.
Titanium or zirconia on a Ti-base
We make custom abutments in premium-grade titanium or as zirconia on a titanium base. A systematic review by Linkevicius and Vaitelis (2015) found no clear advantage of either material for recession, probing depth, bleeding on probing or bone level, but mucosal colour was significantly better with zirconia abutments. The 2023 ITI consensus (Derksen et al.) reported similar 1-year performance for single crowns on Ti-bases and other abutment types, and recommended choosing the abutment at the planning stage.
Titanium suits posterior and high-load sites; zirconia on a Ti-base suits thin tissue in the esthetic zone. See zirconia bonded on a Ti-base and the case implant at tooth 11 with a custom hybrid abutment.
Why the implant details must be exact
Mizumoto and Yilmaz (2018) describe intraoral scan bodies as implant-position transfer devices that play an essential role in accurately fitting implant restorations. Design software matches the scan body on the file to the library of the exact implant system, so a wrong line or connection diameter can mean an abutment that does not seat. Besides system, line and connection, tell us the scan body brand and type; with an implant-level impression, include an analog of the same system. File formats are covered in intraoral scanner compatibility.
Sources: Linkevicius et al., Clin Oral Implants Res 2011; Linkevicius et al., Clin Oral Implants Res 2013 (prospective); Linkevicius et al., Clin Oral Implants Res 2013 (retrospective); Wilson, J Periodontol 2009; Wittneben et al., Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; Andrijauskas et al., Clin Oral Implants Res 2021; Vindasiute-Narbute et al., Int J Prosthodont 2023; Linkevicius and Vaitelis, Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; Derksen et al., ITI Consensus, Clin Oral Implants Res 2023; Mizumoto and Yilmaz, J Prosthet Dent 2018.