Literature DB >> 14579961

Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review.

Konstantinos X Michalakis1, Hiroshi Hirayama, Pavlos D Garefis.   

Abstract

This article presents a comparison of screw-retained and cement-retained implant prostheses based on the literature. The advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of the 2 different types of restorations are discussed, because it is important to understand the influence of the attachment mechanism on many clinical aspects of implant dentistry. Several factors essential to the long-term success of any implant prosthesis were reviewed with regard to both methods of fixation. These factors include: (1) ease of fabrication and cost, (2) passivity of the framework, (3) retention, (4) occlusion, (5) esthetics, (6) delivery, and (7) retrievability. (More than 50 references).

Mesh：

Substances：

Year:  2003        PMID： 14579961

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants        ISSN： 0882-2786            Impact factor:   2.804


  53 in total

1.  Evaluation of fit of cement-retained implant-supported 3-unit structures fabricated with direct metal laser sintering and vacuum casting techniques.

Authors:  Raquel Castillo Oyagüe; Andrés Sánchez-Turrión; José Francisco López-Lozano; Javier Montero; Alberto Albaladejo; María Jesús Suárez-García
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 2.634

Review 2.  The management of severe hypodontia. Part 2: bone augmentation and the provision of implant supported prostheses.

Authors:  K Durey; L Carter; M Chan
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 1.626

3.  Clinical performance of screw-retained and cemented implant-supported zirconia single crowns: 36-month results.

Authors:  Claudio Cacaci; Friederike Cantner; Thomas Mücke; Peter Randelzhofer; Jan Hajtó; Florian Beuer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-10-29       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  A modified technique for extraoral cementation of implant retained restorations for preventing excess cement around the margins.

Authors:  Emir Yuzbasioglu
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 1.904

5.  Replacement of missing anterior tooth using screw retained implant prosthesis in the esthetic zone: a case report with 3 years of follow up.

Authors:  Manawar Ahmad; B Dhanasekar; I N Aparna; Hina Naim
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2012-10-19

6.  Comparison of the effect of implant abutment surface modifications on retention of implant-supported restoration with a polymer based cement.

Authors:  Nabaprakash Sahu; Namratha Lakshmi; N S Azhagarasan; Yoshaskam Agnihotri; Manoj Rajan; Ramasubramanian Hariharan
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2014-01-12

7.  Survival and success rates of soft-milled cobalt-chromium-ceramic full-arch screw-retained implant-supported prostheses: a 2- to 7-year follow-up retrospective study.

Authors:  S Levartovsky; A Arieli; N Fridenberg; S Matalon; R Pilo
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-02-22       Impact factor: 3.573

8.  Retention of Implant Supported Metal Crowns Cemented with Different Luting Agents: A Comparative Invitro Study.

Authors:  Roohi Kapoor; Kavipal Singh; Simrat Kaur; Aman Arora
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-04-01

9.  Factors determining the retentiveness of luting agents used with metal- and ceramic-based implant components.

Authors:  Cornelia Schiessl; Lina Schaefer; Christian Winter; Jan Fuerst; Martin Rosentritt; Florian Zeman; Michael Behr
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-07-31       Impact factor: 3.573

10.  Loosening torque of Universal Abutment screws after cyclic loading: influence of tightening technique and screw coating.

Authors:  Atais Bacchi; Alexandre Regalin; Claudia Lopes Brilhante Bhering; Rodrigo Alessandretti; Aloisio Oro Spazzin
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 1.904
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.