Literature DB >> 29312451

Survey of Screw-Retained versus Cement-Retained Implant Restorations in Saudi Arabia.

Alaa Makke1, Abdulwahed Homsi1, Montaha Guzaiz1, Abdulrahman Almalki1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Implant-supported prostheses are currently the standard treatment for the replacement of missing teeth and deficiencies. Implant restorations can either be screw-retained, cement-retained, or both. The implant retention system type is typically chosen during the treatment plan. The primary purpose of this study is to investigate the frequency of implant restoration retention systems.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A five-page questionnaire was sent to private institutes, educational institutes, and governmental hospitals that provide dental services. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Prior to distribution, the surveys were proofread and pilot-tested at the Faculty of Dentistry at Umm Al-Qura University. The surveys were mailed to three groups: private institutes, educational institutes, and governmental hospitals. In total, 120 surveys were distributed and 87 surveys were returned, for a response rate of 73%. This included thirty-six surveys (41.4%) from private institutes, twenty-two surveys (25.3%) from educational institutes, and twenty-nine surveys (33.3%) from governmental hospitals.
CONCLUSIONS: In general, Astra was cited as the most widely used implant system. In addition, cement-retained restorations were more frequently used than screw-retained restorations. However, dental implant failure was more frequently associated with cement-retained restorations than with screw-retained restorations.

Entities:  

Year:  2017        PMID: 29312451      PMCID: PMC5682889          DOI: 10.1155/2017/5478371

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Dent        ISSN: 1687-8728


  20 in total

1.  Comparative evaluation of casting retention using the ITI solid abutment with six cements.

Authors:  Ahmed Mansour; Carlo Ercoli; Gerald Graser; Ross Tallents; Mark Moss
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 5.977

2.  Improving quality of life using removable and fixed implant prostheses.

Authors:  Jeff Pennington; Sid Parker
Journal:  Compend Contin Educ Dent       Date:  2012-04

3.  Marginal fit of cemented and screw-retained crowns incorporated on the Straumann (ITI) Dental Implant System: an in vitro study.

Authors:  N A Tosches; U Brägger; N P Lang
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 5.977

4.  Predictors of excess cement and tissue response to fixed implant-supported dentures after cementation.

Authors:  Michael Korsch; Bernt-Peter Robra; Winfried Walther
Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res       Date:  2013-07-24       Impact factor: 3.932

5.  Cement-retained implant-supported fixed partial dentures: a 6-month to 3-year follow-up.

Authors:  A Singer; V Serfaty
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  1996 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.804

Review 6.  A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years.

Authors:  Marco Aglietta; Vincenzo Iorio Siciliano; Marcel Zwahlen; Urs Brägger; Bjarni E Pjetursson; Niklaus P Lang; Giovanni E Salvi
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 5.977

Review 7.  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

8.  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

9.  Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 10-year randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Paolo Vigolo; Sabrina Mutinelli; Andrea Givani; Edoardo Stellini
Journal:  Eur J Oral Implantol       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.123

Review 10.  Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo Lemos; Victor Eduardo de Souza Batista; Daniel Augusto de Faria Almeida; Joel Ferreira Santiago Júnior; Fellippo Ramos Verri; Eduardo Piza Pellizzer
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2015-11-14       Impact factor: 3.426

View more
  2 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  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
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.