Literature DB >> 23062142

Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates.

Irena Sailer1, Sven Mühlemann, Marcel Zwahlen, Christoph H F Hämmerle, David Schneider.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the 5-year survival rates and incidences of complications of cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions.
METHODS: An electronic Medline search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), and prospective and retrospective studies giving information on cemented and screw-retained single-unit and multiple-unit implant reconstructions with a mean follow-up time of at least 1 year. Assessment of the identified studies and data abstraction were performed independently by three reviewers. Failure rates were analyzed using Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates and 95% confidence intervals of failure rates and 5-year survival proportions.
RESULTS: Fifty-nine clinical studies were selected from an initial yield of 4511 titles and the data were extracted. For cemented single crowns the estimated 5-year reconstruction survival was 96.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 94.8-97.7%), for screw-retained single crowns it was 89.3% (95% CI: 64.9-97.1%) (P = 0.091 for difference). The 5-year survival for cemented partial fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) was 96.9% (95% CI: 90.8-99%), similar to the one for screw-retained partial FDPs with 98% (95% CI: 96.2-99%) (P = 0.47). For cemented full-arch FDPs the 5-year survival was 100% (95% CI: 88.9-100%), which was somewhat higher than that for screw-retained FDPs with 95.8% (95% CI: 91.9-97.9%) (P = 0.54). The estimated 5-year cumulative incidence of technical complications at cemented single crowns was 11.9% and 24.4% at screw-retained crowns. At the partial and full-arch FDPs, in contrast, a trend to less complication at the screw-retained was found than at the cemented ones (partial FDPs cemented 24.5%, screw-retained 22.1%; full-arch FDPs cemented 62.9%, screw-retained 54.1%). Biological complications like marginal bone loss >2 mm occurred more frequently at cemented crowns (5-year incidence: 2.8%) than at screw-retained ones (5-year incidence: 0%).
CONCLUSION: Both types of reconstructions influenced the clinical outcomes in different ways, none of the fixation methods was clearly advantageous over the other. Cemented reconstructions exhibited more serious biological complications (implant loss, bone loss >2 mm), screw-retained reconstructions exhibited more technical problems. Screw-retained reconstructions are more easily retrievable than cemented reconstructions and, therefore, technical and eventually biological complications can be treated more easily. For this reason and for their apparently higher biological compatibility, these reconstructions seem to be preferable.
© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23062142     DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02538.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  55 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.  [Dental implant restoration abutment selection].

Authors:  Shi Bin; Zeng Hao
Journal:  Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2017-04-01

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

Review 4.  Differentiating success from survival in modern implantology--key considerations for case selection, predicting complications and obtaining consent.

Authors:  J Beaumont; G McManus; J Darcey
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 1.626

5.  Graftless solution for multiple unfavorably placed implants using dynamic abutment® solutions: A case report with a 3-year follow-up.

Authors:  Chandrasekhar Nakka; Soujanya Kollipara; Kothuri Naga Ravalika
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2020-07-17

6.  Survey of consultants in restorative dentistry in the UK regarding ongoing care of patients provided with dental implants.

Authors:  H P Beddis; K A Durey; M F W Y Chan
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2017-08-25       Impact factor: 1.626

7.  A non-interventional multicenter study to document the implants success and survival rates in daily dental practices of the CONELOG screw-line implant.

Authors:  Claudio Cacaci; Karl-Ludwig Ackermann; Thomas Barth; Steffen Kistler; Michael Stiller; Markus Schlee
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2018-10-15       Impact factor: 3.573

8.  Clinical application of integrated angulated screw channel abutment crown in implant-supported rehabilitation of aesthetic area.

Authors:  Yan Mei Wang; Xin Liu; Jia Cai He
Journal:  Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi       Date:  2021-12-01

9.  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

10.  A Special Design to Facilitate Retrieval of Cement-Retained Zirconia-Based Implant-Supported Restorations.

Authors:  Mitra Farzin; Reza Derafshi; Rashin Giti; Masumeh Taghva
Journal:  J Dent (Shiraz)       Date:  2021-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.