Literature DB >> 25183915

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

Manawar Ahmad1, B Dhanasekar1, I N Aparna1, Hina Naim2.   

Abstract

As more and more dental practitioners are focusing on implant-supported fixed restorations, some clinicians favor the use of cement retained restorations while others consider screw-retained prosthesis to be the best choice. As both types of prostheses have certain advantages and disadvantages, clinicians should be aware of the limitations of each type. Screw-retained implant restorations have an advantage of predictable retention, retrievability and lack of potentially retained sub-gingival cement. However, a few disadvantages exist such as precise placement of the implant for optimal and esthetic location of the screw access hole and obtaining passive fit. On the other hand, cement retained restorations eliminates unaesthetic screw access holes; have passive fit of castings; reduce stress to splinted implants because of minor misfit of the framework; reduced complexity of lab procedures; enhanced esthetics; reduced cost factors and non disrupted morphology of the occlusal table. This case report presents the replacement of missing left central incisor using screw-retained implant prosthesis due to palatal trajectory of the implant placement and inadequate abutment height for retention of cement retained prosthesis.

Keywords:  Cement retained implant prosthesis; Dental implants; Implant prosthesis; Screw retained implant prosthesis

Year:  2012        PMID: 25183915      PMCID: PMC4148511          DOI: 10.1007/s13191-012-0188-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc        ISSN: 0972-4052


  14 in total

1.  Stress levels for well-fitting implant superstructures as a function of tightening force levels, tightening sequence, and different operators.

Authors:  J Nissan; M Gross; A Shifman; D Assif
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 3.426

2.  Technique for removing a cemented superstructure from an implant abutment.

Authors:  Makoto Okamoto; Shogo Minagi
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 3.426

3.  Alternative method for retention and removal of cement-retained implant prostheses.

Authors:  F P Valbao; E G Perez; M Breda
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 3.426

4.  Cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures.

Authors:  K X Michalakis; A L Pissiotis; H Hirayama
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2000 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.804

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

Authors:  Konstantinos X Michalakis; Hiroshi Hirayama; Pavlos D Garefis
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.804

6.  Fabrication of a cement- and screw-retained implant prosthesis.

Authors:  Manoj Rajan; R Gunaseelan
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.426

7.  Fabrication of a cement- and screw-retained multiunit implant restoration.

Authors:  Bulent Uludag; Gozde Celik
Journal:  J Oral Implantol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.779

8.  Peri-implant soft-tissue health surrounding cement- and screw-retained implant restorations: a multi-center, 3-year prospective study.

Authors:  Hans P Weber; David M Kim; Mavis W Ng; Jae W Hwang; Joseph P Fiorellini
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 5.977

9.  Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components.

Authors:  R S Squier; J R Agar; J P Duncan; T D Taylor
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.804

Review 10.  Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry.

Authors:  K S Hebel; R C Gajjar
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.426

View more
  4 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Retention failures in cement- and screw-retained fixed restorations on dental implants in partially edentulous arches: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jatin K Jain; Rajesh Sethuraman; Sameer Chauhan; Piyush Javiya; Shreya Srivastava; Rutvik Patel; Bhagyashri Bhalani
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2018 Jul-Sep

3.  Implant supported prosthesis on edentulous mandible with multiple impacted teeth - a case report with 5 year follow up.

Authors:  Annapoorni Hariharan; Siva Prakash Dhanaraj
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2019-10-10

Review 4.  Clinical Evidence on a Novel Macrohybrid Design Dental Implant with 12° Angled Platform: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Andrea Galve-Huertas; Maria José Zilleruelo-Pozo; Susana García-González; Octavi Ortíz-Puigpelat; Federico Hernández-Alfaro; Samir Aboul-Hosn Centenero
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-19       Impact factor: 3.748

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.