The aim of the article is to assess the current literature in terms of the prosthetic outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations, as well as to determine the type of cement that can be recommended for clinical application. A review of the literature published up to May 2010 was conducted to identify clinical studies about cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations. The search strategy applied was a combination of MeSH terms and free text words, including the following keywords: implants, implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), bridges, implant-supported single crowns (SCs), cement-retained, cement fixation, cement, cementation, cement failure, retention, and loss of retention, technical complications, mechanical complications, prosthetic complication, retrievability and maintenance. Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies were divided into two categories: 15 short-term clinical studies with an observation period of less than 5 years, and 17 long-term clinical studies with an observation period of 5 years and more. The most common technical complications of cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations were loss of retention, chipping and abutment screw loosening. The results of the current review revealed no guidelines about cement or cementation procedures. It may be stated that despite the questionable retrievability of cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations, this treatment modality is a reliable and effective option, especially for implant-supported SCs and short-span FDPs. The literature does not provide accurate information about the clinical outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations nor about the ideal type of cement that facilitates stability and maintains retrievability. Standardised randomised clinical trials will provide valuable information to this issue.

No abstract

Objective The purpose of this laboratory study was to evaluate the fatigue resistance, fracture resistance and mode of failure of posterior hybrid‐abutment‐crown vs. hybrid‐abutment with separate crown, both bonded to short titanium bases. Materials and Methods Thirty‐two titanium implants were embedded perpendicularly in auto‐polymerizing resin. Implant‐supported restorations simulating a maxillary first premolar were designed and milled using a CAD/CAM system and divided into 2 groups according to material (n = 16): zirconia (Z) and lithium disilicate (L). Each group was subdivided into two subgroups according to design (n = 8): hybrid‐abutment‐crown (ZS, LS) and hybrid‐abutment with separate crown (ZC, LC). Each group was subjected to 1.2 million cycles of thermo‐mechanical fatigue loading in a dual‐axis chewing simulator at 120 N load. Surviving specimens were subjected to quasi‐static loading in a universal testing machine. Mode of failure was determined under a low magnification optical microscope. Results During chewing simulation, 18.8% of zirconia and 43.8% of lithium disilicate restorations failed. The fracture resistance median values ranged from 3,730 N for group ZC, 3,400 N for group ZS, 1,295 N for group LS to 849 N for group LC. Group ZC had a statistically significant higher fracture resistance than groups LC and LS; however, it did not differ significantly from group ZS (p ≤ 0.05). Failures were seen in both titanium bases and ceramic superstructure. Conclusions Zirconia and lithium disilicate hybrid implant‐supported restorations with short (3 mm) titanium bases failed in a considerable number already during chewing simulation. Therefore, despite their high fracture strength the use in the posterior region should be considered critically.

No abstract

No abstract