Literature DB >> 25615920

Influence of prosthesis type and retention mechanism on complications with fixed implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review applying multivariate analyses.

Christopher Millen, Urs Brägger, Julia-Gabriela Wittneben.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To identify the influence of fixed prosthesis type on biologic and technical complication rates in the context of screw versus cement retention. Furthermore, a multivariate analysis was conducted to determine which factors, when considered together, influence the complication and failure rates of fixed implant-supported prostheses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic searches of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were conducted. Selected inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to limit the search. Data were analyzed statistically with simple and multivariate random-effects Poisson regressions.
RESULTS: Seventy-three articles qualified for inclusion in the study. Screw-retained prostheses showed a tendency toward and significantly more technical complications than cemented prostheses with single crowns and fixed partial prostheses, respectively. Resin chipping and ceramic veneer chipping had high mean event rates, at 10.04 and 8.95 per 100 years, respectively, for full-arch screwed prostheses. For "all fixed prostheses" (prosthesis type not reported or not known), significantly fewer biologic and technical complications were seen with screw retention. Multivariate analysis revealed a significantly greater incidence of technical complications with cemented prostheses. Full-arch prostheses, cantilevered prostheses, and "all fixed prostheses" had significantly higher complication rates than single crowns. A significantly greater incidence of technical and biologic complications was seen with cemented prostheses.
CONCLUSION: Screw-retained fixed partial prostheses demonstrated a significantly higher rate of technical complications and screw-retained full-arch prostheses demonstrated a notably high rate of veneer chipping. When "all fixed prostheses" were considered, significantly higher rates of technical and biologic complications were seen for cement-retained prostheses. Multivariate Poisson regression analysis failed to show a significant difference between screw- and cement-retained prostheses with respect to the incidence of failure but demonstrated a higher rate of technical and biologic complications for cement-retained prostheses. The incidence of technical complications was more dependent upon prosthesis and retention type than prosthesis or abutment material.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25615920     DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3607

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


  15 in total

1.  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

2.  Peri-implant conditions and marginal bone loss around cemented and screw-retained single implant crowns in posterior regions: A retrospective cohort study with up to 4 years follow-up.

Authors:  Jun-Yu Shi; Long-Fei Zhuang; Xiao-Meng Zhang; Lin-Feng Fan; Hong-Chang Lai
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study.

Authors:  Rémy Tanimura; Shiro Suzuki
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2017-05-05

4.  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

5.  Fixed Full Arches Supported by Tapered Implants with Knife-Edge Thread Design and Nanostructured, Calcium-Incorporated Surface: A Short-Term Prospective Clinical Study.

Authors:  Soheil Bechara; Algirdas Lukosiunas; Giorgio Andrea Dolcini; Ricardas Kubilius
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2017-01-29       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Effect of repetitive firing on passive fit of metal substructure produced by the laser sintering in implant-supported fixed prosthesis.

Authors:  Musa Aykut Altintas; Hakan Akin
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2020-06-18       Impact factor: 1.904

Review 7.  A Systematic Review of Screw versus Cement-Retained Fixed Implant Supported Reconstructions.

Authors:  Mohamed Tharwat Hamed; Hisham Abdullah Mously; Saeed Khalid Alamoudi; Abou Bakr Hossam Hashem; Ghada Hussein Naguib
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dent       Date:  2020-01-14

Review 8.  Prevalence and risk indicators for peri-implant diseases: A literature review.

Authors:  Masahiro Wada; Tomoaki Mameno; Motohiro Otsuki; Misako Kani; Yoshitaka Tsujioka; Kazunori Ikebe
Journal:  Jpn Dent Sci Rev       Date:  2021-06-08

9.  The current considerations in the fabrication of implant prostheses and the state of prosthetic complications: A survey among the dental technicians.

Authors:  Abdullah Al Farraj Al Dosari; Syed Rashid Habib; Talal Alnassar; Abdulmonem Alshihri; Ranan Kamalan
Journal:  Saudi Dent J       Date:  2018-06-11

10.  Complications of Fixed Full-Arch Implant-Supported Metal-Ceramic Prostheses.

Authors:  Ignacio Gonzalez-Gonzalez; Hector deLlanos-Lanchares; Aritza Brizuela-Velasco; Jose-Antonio Alvarez-Riesgo; Santiago Llorente-Pendas; Mariano Herrero-Climent; Angel Alvarez-Arenal
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-06-14       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.