It does not seem that it would be logically possible to hold Sola Scriptura as the truth and simultaneously to hold that cessationism is not true, at least as cessationism relates to new teachings (prophecies, doctrinal developments, etc). If a true prophet were to speak today, guided by the Holy Spirit, then his words would be binding, since He is speaking for God. Hence, there would be some other infallible authority besides Scripture. Namely, that man's prophetic words. Hence, one could no longer be an adherent of Sola Scriptura were one to believe that man's prophecies.
Therefore, as long as one holds that it is possible for prophecies or other infallible teachings to be handed down by the guidance of the Holy Spirit today (ie not cessationism), one cannot hold that Scripture is the final and sole authority for Christian faith (Sola Scriptura). From this, we can derive the conclusion: if one adheres to Sola Scriptura, one is implicitly a cessationist, at least with regard to new infallible teaching.
Beyond infallible teaching, there is no reason why those who adhere to Sola Scriptura cannot believe that the Holy Spirit sometimes acts to bring about miracles, etc, but nothing He brings about could be new doctrine, nor could it be doctrinal development, as these would require extra-biblical means of conveying Divinely revealed truth.
It should be noted that the converse is not problematic. One might be a cessationist without being an adherent to Sola Scriptura. For instance, one might believe that the Apostles handed down the full deposit of faith through both letters and oral teachings, and that no new infallible teachings will come down until the Last Day, which would entail cessationism, but would put authoritative stock in Early Church oral traditions that were not written in the canon of Scripture.