Literature DB >> 24660192

Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions--a systematic review.

Julia-Gabriela Wittneben, Christopher Millen, Urs Brägger.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the survival outcomes and reported complications of screw- and cement-retained fixed reconstructions supported on dental implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane electronic database search from 2000 to September 2012 using MeSH and free-text terms was conducted. Selected inclusion and exclusion criteria guided the search. All studies were first reviewed by abstract and subsequently by full-text reading by two examiners independently. Data were extracted by two examiners and statistically analyzed using a random effects Poisson regression.
RESULTS: From 4,324 abstracts, 321 full-text articles were reviewed. Seventy-three articles were found to qualify for inclusion. Five-year survival rates of 96.03% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.85% to 97.43%) and 95.55% (95% CI: 92.96% to 97.19%) were calculated for cemented and screw-retained reconstructions, respectively (P = .69). Comparison of cement and screw retention showed no difference when grouped as single crowns (I-SC) (P = .10) or fixed partial dentures (I-FDP) (P = .49). The 5-year survival rate for screw-retained full-arch reconstructions was 96.71% (95% CI: 93.66% to 98.31). All-ceramic reconstruction material exhibited a significantly higher failure rate than porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) in cemented reconstructions (P = .01) but not when comparing screw-retained reconstructions (P = .66). Technical and biologic complications demonstrating a statistically significant difference included loss of retention (P ≤ .01), abutment loosening (P ≤ .01), porcelain fracture and/or chipping (P = .02), presence of fistula/suppuration (P ≤ .001), total technical events (P = .03), and total biologic events (P = .02).
CONCLUSIONS: Although no statistical difference was found between cement- and screw-retained reconstructions for survival or failure rates, screw-retained reconstructions exhibited fewer technical and biologic complications overall. There were no statistically significant differences between the failure rates of the different reconstruction types (I-SCs, I-FDPs, full-arch I-FDPs) or abutment materials (titanium, gold, ceramic). The failure rate of cemented reconstructions was not influenced by the choice of a specific cement, though cement type did influence loss of retention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24660192     DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g2.1

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


  42 in total

1.  The influence of implant abutment surface roughness and the type of cement on retention of implant supported crowns.

Authors:  S Varalakshmi Reddy; M Sushender Reddy; C Rajaneesh Reddy; Padmaja Pithani; Santosh Kumar R; Ganesh Kulkarni
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2015-03-01

Review 2.  Factors affecting the complexity of dental implant restoration - what is the current evidence and guidance?

Authors:  S P Wright; J Hayden; J A Lynd; K Walker-Finch; J Willett; C Ucer; S D Speechley
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 1.626

3.  In-vitro performance of CAD/CAM-fabricated implant-supported temporary crowns.

Authors:  Martin Rosentritt; Philipp Raab; Sebastian Hahnel; Matthias Stöckle; Verena Preis
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-01-21       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Should the vent hole of posterior implant crowns be placed on the lateral surface? An in vitro study of the hydrodynamic feature of cement extrusion and retention ability.

Authors:  Sixian Ye; Huangjun Zhou; Xingyu Lyu; Hao Feng; Min Liu; Cai Wen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-20       Impact factor: 3.752

5.  Implant-supported fixed hybrid acrylic complete dentures opposing fully restored mandibular metal ceramic restorations.

Authors:  Mohammed A Alfarsi; Sharaz Shaik
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2020-02-26

6.  Occlusal rehabilitation in patients with congenitally missing teeth-dental implants, conventional prosthetics, tooth autotransplants, and preservation of deciduous teeth-a systematic review.

Authors:  Hendrik Terheyden; Falk Wüsthoff
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2015-11-18

7.  Technical and Biological Complications of Screw-Retained (CAD/CAM) Monolithic and Partial Veneer Zirconia for Fixed Dental Prostheses on Posterior Implants Using a Digital Workflow: A 3-Year Cross-Sectional Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Paolo De Angelis; Giulio Gasparini; Francesca Camodeca; Silvio De Angelis; Margherita Giorgia Liguori; Edoardo Rella; Francesca Cannata; Antonio D'Addona; Paolo Francesco Manicone
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2021-07-06       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Effect of Abutment Geometry and Luting Agents on the Vertical Marginal Discrepancy of Cast Copings on Implant Abutments: An In Vitro Study.

Authors:  Jose Rosas; Frank Mayta-Tovalino; Violeta Malpartida-Carrillo; Arnaldo Munive Degregori; Roman Mendoza; Maria E Guerrero
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2021-06-21

Review 9.  A systematic review of the clinical survival of zirconia implants.

Authors:  Dena Hashim; Norbert Cionca; Delphine S Courvoisier; Andrea Mombelli
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-05-24       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 10.  Some issues related to evidence-based implantology.

Authors:  Gunnar E Carlsson
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2016 Apr-Jun
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.