Purpose: Dental implant is an effective and standardized treatment procedure in the healthcare setting. This study presents a comparison of dental implant reconstruction using screw and cement. It explicitly reviews the studies concerning cement and screws dental implants to determine the efficiency of the two. Patients and Methods: A systematic review was conducted by comprehensively searching electronic literature. The keywords, such as "Screw versus Cement Retained Fixed Implant Supported Reconstructions," "Screw Retained Fixed Implant." "Cement Implant" and "Dental Implant" were used for article searching. Twelve studies were included based on the determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: No significant difference was found between the screw-retained and cemented retained implant supported reconstructions. Dental implants are associated with complications leading to implant failure based on the type of restoration that is being used; cementretained restoration and screw-retained restoration. The treatment selection must be based on the significance criteria and the tooth condition. Conclusion: Screw-retained implant-supported reconstructions were found to pose less biological and technological complications. Retention of the tooth is more stable and functional when implantation is selected based on the efficiency of a treatment procedure.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the implant diameter and length on force dissemination of tooth-implant and implant retained fixed restorations. A finite analysis model was used via a 3D simulation of a unilateral mandibular Kennedy Class I arch. Through thresholding the resultant assembly, a region of interest was selected from the CT scan. Details of the diameter (D) and length (L) of implant were introduced. Ds used were 3.7, 4.7, and 5.7, while Ls used were 10, 11.5, and 13. The constant was the use of rigid connectors in both designs (implant–implant and implant–tooth fixed partial dentures) and the mesial implant (D 3.7 and L 11.5).  Stress in cancellous bone around mesial abutment, which is the second premolar in tooth-implant FPD and mesial implant in the implant-implant fixed partial denture (FPD), revealed that the stress was significantly lower in tooth-implant FPD when compared to implant-implant FPD (21.1±0.00 versus 46.1±0.00, p <0.001). Stress distribution in the bone around any implant depends on several factors such as diameter, length, and tooth-implant vs. implant-implant support. The implant diameter was more significant for improved stress distribution than implant length. A moderate increase in the length of the implant consequently reduced stress.

No abstract

Purpose To investigate the significance of the connector type on stress dissemination within the tooth‐implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses in the mandibular posterior region with different combinations of implant diameter and length by means of finite element analysis (FEA). Materials and Methods Six models of different designs for tooth‐implant fixed dental prosthesis (FDPs) were simulated and divided into two main groups. Implant lengths were 10, 11.5, and 13 mm while implant diameters were 3.7, 4.7, and 5.7 mm. The main difference between the groups was the connector type. Models were evaluated using 3D FEA (Solidworks Premium 2018 × 64 Edition). Group A tooth‐implant FDPs (5.7 mm × 10 mm) had a mesial and distal rigid connector while group B tooth‐implant FDPs (3.7 mm × 10 mm, 3.7 mm × 11.5 mm, 3.7 mm × 13 mm, 4.7 mm × 10 mm and 5.7 mm × 10 mm) had a mesial non‐rigid connector in their design between the pontic and the tooth. Models were analyzed to determine the magnitude of von Misses Stresses at six specific zones (fixed dental prosthesis, bone around distal implant, bone around tooth, cementum, periodontal ligament, implant) under vertical occlusal loading of 100 N after meshing and assigning the material properties. Results Stress values around the supporting bone were significantly higher in Group B (tooth‐implant FDP with non‐rigid connection) when compared to Group A (tooth‐implant FDP with rigid connection). Also, the stresses measured at the FDP level showed that the rigid connection group (5.7 mm × 10 mm) exhibited 26% lower stress values when compared to the non‐rigid group (5.7 mm × 10 mm). Conclusions Implant‐tooth FDPs with rigid connector design using the combination of implant diameter and length (5.7 mm × 10 mm) demonstrated a better design modality thus predicting a higher success rate and more longevity than using the non‐rigid connection option.

Statement of problem: Reliable bond to zirconia based materials has proven to be difficult which is the major limitation against luting zirconia restorations. Purpose: This in vitro study compared effect of selective infiltration etching (SIE) and tribochemical silica sandblasting (TSS) on microtensile bond strength to zirconia based material before and after different artificial aging intervals. Materials and methods: Twenty Lava plus high translucency zirconia disks (3 M, ESPE) were randomly divided into two study groups according to their surface treatment: (a) selective infiltration etching (SIE) and (b) tribo-chemical silica sandblasting (TSS). Zirconia disks were bonded to composite resin specimens using Panavia F2.0 resin cement. Zirconia resin bond strength was evaluated using the microtensile bond strength test (MTBS) and the test was repeated before and after the following intervals of accelerated artificial aging; 1 week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks and 4 weeks of water storage (37°C). A repeated measures ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc tests were used to analyze the data. Results: The interaction between surface treatments and storage times were statistically significant. Data analysis revealed significant differences between the two surface treatments (P<0.05).Selective infiltration etched specimens demonstrated relatively higher MTBS values than TSS (48.5 and 24.8 MPa).SEM examination of broken microbars revealed more interfacial failure type for TSS than SIE specimens that showed a predominantly cohesive failure type. Conclusions: Selective infiltration etching provided superior micro-tensile bond strength results compared to tribo-chemical silica sandblasting. Established bond strength by selective infiltration etching was not affected by artificial aging as tribo-chemical silica sandblasting.