Literature DB >> 22010095

Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations.

Joseph Nissan1, Demitri Narobai, Ora Gross, Oded Ghelfan, Gavriel Chaushu.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The present study was designed to compare the long-term outcome and complications of cemented versus screw-retained implant restorations in partially edentulous patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with bilateral partial posterior edentulism comprised the study group. Implants were placed, and cemented or screw-retained restorations were randomly assigned to the patients in a split-mouth design. Follow-up (up to 15 years) examinations were performed every 6 months in the first year and every 12 months in subsequent years. The following parameters were evaluated and recorded at each recall appointment: ceramic fracture, abutment screw loosening, metal frame fracture, Gingival Index, and marginal bone loss.
RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were treated with 221 implants to support partial prostheses. No implants during the follow-up period (mean follow-up, 66 ± 47 months for screw-retained restorations [range, 18 to 180 months] and 61 ± 40 months for cemented restorations [range, 18 to 159 months]). Ceramic fracture occurred significantly more frequently (P < .001) in screw-retained (38% ± 0.3%) than in cemented (4% ± 0.1%) restorations. Abutment screw loosening occurred statistically significantly more often (P = .001) in screw-retained (32% ± 0.3%) than in cement-retained (9% ± 0.2%) restorations. There were no metal frame fractures in either type of restoration. The mean Gingival Index scores were statistically significantly higher (P < .001) for screw-retained (0.48 ± 0.5) than for cemented (0.09 ± 0.3) restorations. The mean marginal bone loss was statistically significantly higher (P < .001) for screw-retained (1.4 ± 0.6 mm) than for cemented (0.69 ± 0.5 mm) restorations.
CONCLUSION: The long-term outcome of cemented implant-supported restorations was superior to that of screw-retained restorations, both clinically and biologically.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22010095

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


  20 in total

1.  Mechanical performance of cement- and screw-retained all-ceramic single crowns on dental implants.

Authors:  Matthias Obermeier; Oliver Ristow; Kurt Erdelt; Florian Beuer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-07-15       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Access to abutment screw in cement retained restorations: a clinical tip.

Authors:  Mohit Kheur; Husain Harianawala; Nidhi Kantharia; Tania Sethi; Shantanu Jambhekar
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2015-02-01

3.  The selection criteria of temporary or permanent luting agents in implant-supported prostheses: in vitro study.

Authors:  Angel Alvarez-Arenal; Ignacio Gonzalez-Gonzalez; Hector deLlanos-Lanchares; Aritza Brizuela-Velasco; Joseba Ellacuria-Echebarria
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 1.904

4.  Evaluation of the Effect of Axial Wall Modification and Coping Design on the Retention of Cement-retained Implant-supported Crowns.

Authors:  Reza Derafshi; Ahmad Hasan Ahangari; Kianoosh Torabi; Mitra Farzin
Journal:  J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects       Date:  2015-03-04

5.  Clinical Advantages and Limitations of Monolithic Zirconia Restorations Full Arch Implant Supported Reconstruction: Case Series.

Authors:  Joao Carames; Loana Tovar Suinaga; Yung Cheng Paul Yu; Alejandro Pérez; Mary Kang
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2015-06-01

6.  Biomechanical effects of platform switching in two different implant systems: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.

Authors:  Mahasti Sahabi; Mehdi Adibrad; Fatemeh Sadat Mirhashemi; Sareh Habibzadeh
Journal:  J Dent (Tehran)       Date:  2013-05-31

7.  Low-magnitude high-frequency loading, by whole-body vibration, accelerates early implant osseointegration in ovariectomized rats.

Authors:  Yong-Qiang Liang; Meng-Chun Qi; Jiang Xu; Juan Xu; Hua-Wei Liu; Wei Dong; Jin-Yuan Li; Min Hu
Journal:  Mol Med Rep       Date:  2014-09-23       Impact factor: 2.952

8.  Current status of implant prosthetics in Japan: a survey among certified dental lab technicians.

Authors:  Yoshiyuki Hagiwara; Tatsuya Narita; Yohei Shioda; Keisuke Iwasaki; Takayuki Ikeda; Shunsuke Namaki; Thomas J Salinas
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2015-02-17

9.  Influence of abutment design on retention of metal copings cemented to implants.

Authors:  Albano Porto da Cunha; Glauco Pereira Moysés; Ana Christina Claro Neves; Rafael Pino Vitti; Flávia Cardoso da Rosa Goulart; Laís Regiane da Siva-Concílio
Journal:  Acta Biomater Odontol Scand       Date:  2016-01-26

10.  Finite Element Analysis of Dental Implants with Zirconia Crown Restorations: Conventional Cement-Retained vs. Cementless Screw-Retained.

Authors:  Jae-Hyun Lee; Ho Yeol Jang; Su Young Lee
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 3.623

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.