Cemented and screw‐retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates

Sailer, Irena; Mühlemann, Sven; Zwahlen, Marcel; Hämmerle, Christoph H. F.; Schneider, David J.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02538.x

Cited by 374 publications

(420 citation statements)

References 306 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

355

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Conversely, more serious biological complications were found in cemented prostheses, as implant failures and bone resorptions were greater than 2 mm (9). Although none of the two retention types was clearly advantageous, the reversibility of screw-retained crowns allows easier treatment of technical and biological complications (9).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Influence of Cusp Inclination and Type of Retention on Fracture Load of Implant-Supported Crowns

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are few informations about the influence of cusp inclination on the fracture strength of implant-supported crowns. The study aimed to evaluate the influence of cusp inclination and retention type on fracture load in implant-supported metal-ceramic single crowns. Sixty crowns were made, classified as cemented and screw-retained with screw access hole (SAH) sealed or not. Standard (33°) and reduced (20°) cusp inclinations were tested for each group (n=10). To support crowns of a mandibular second molar, analogs of external hexagon implants 5.0 were used. The fracture load was measured in a universal testing machine EMIC DL2000 (10 kN load cell; 0.5 mm/min). Two-way ANOVA (retention and cusp inclination) followed by post hoc Tukey's honest significant difference test was used for the statistical analyses (α=0.05). Crowns with reduced cusp inclination exhibited significantly higher fracture load (p<0.01) than crowns with standard cusp inclination. Cemented crowns showed significantly higher fracture load (p<0.01) than screw-retained crowns. The interaction among these factors was not significant (p>0.05) for the fracture load. The sealing of SAH did not influence the fracture load of screw-retained crowns (p>0.05). In conclusion, fracture load of implant-supported metal-ceramic crowns was influenced by retention and cusp inclination, and there was no influence of the sealing of SAH.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies report lower fracture strength values for the screw-retained crowns (1,2,4,5,7,(8)(9)(10)(11). This is explained by the presence of SAH that disrupts the structural continuity of the veneer porcelain (2,4).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Cusp Inclination and Type of Retention on Fracture Load of Implant-Supported Crowns

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, systematic reviews also showed that there were no significant differences between the fixation techniques (i.e., screwed and cemented) used in fixed prostheses [25,28,29], despite the greater tendency for biological and mechanical complications in the cemented prostheses and screwed prostheses, respectively. One problem that was discovered when comparing the results of these types of prostheses was the lack of specific cementing protocols for this fixed prosthesis (for both the material and the technique used [30].…”

Section: Biomechanicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For extended fixed bridges or cantilever prostheses, a screwed fixation would be more appropriate [27]. The main advantage of screwing in the prostheses was that they could be removed and replaced without damaging the structure of the prostheses or implants, there by facilitating subsequent clinical procedures [12,29,30].…”

Section: Biomechanicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Current knowledge of prosthetic rehabilitation using implants: a literature review

Silva¹,

Ribeiro²,

Malaquias³

et al. 2017

Clin Med Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study proposes a brief literature review on the current condition of implant dentistry with regard to rehabilitation of prosthetic osseo integrated implants. At this stage, manufacturers of implants and prosthetic components have provided a number of innovative options for dental surgeons with promises of high performance and predictability. However, it is known that the established concepts and biological conditions such asosseo integration parameters, surface treatment, implant design, and early and immediate loading are difficult to be changed. This scientific basis is increasingly necessary for the update of professionals who are active in the academic or clinical areas in order to provide the best quality of treatment to patients and consequent quality of life.

show abstract

“…[7,8] Furthermore, it is reported by a multicenter in vivo study that the peri-implant soft tissue responds more favorably in the terms of low plaque index and bleeding on probing to screw retained restoration when compared to cemented retained restoration. [9] Furthermore, the previous systematic reviews reveal also controversies as (Sailer et al, 2012) there is no evidence to support the diff erence in marginal bone loss and (Sherif et al, 2013) reported no signifi cant diff erence between two types. [6,10,11] Among this dilemma we still need clear evidence to answer which type screw retained or cemented retained restoration could associated with less occurrences of peri-implantitis?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of screw retained versus cement retained implant-supported prosthesis on peri-implantitis:A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abdullah

Al-Fahd²,

Alsourori³

et al. 2015

IDJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this study was to test the signifi cant diff erences of the marginal bone loss (MBL) between screw retained versus cemented prosthesis. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive electronic searching in PubMed and Cochrane databases up to July 2015 with language restriction to English only. We include any randomized controlled trials compare between screw retained versus cemented retained implant prosthesis regarding MBL. In addition, a manual searching was performed for related journals from January 2011 to May 2015. A meta-analysis was performed on all included studies by using a random eff ect model (mean, 95% confi dence intervals [CI]) to pool the eff ect size as a heterogeneity among studies was high (P < 0.0001 and I² = 88%). Result: Initial screening and manual searching result in 199 articles from which only 4 articles compatible with our inclusion criteria. No statistical signifi cance was found between screw retained and cemented retained prosthesis regarding MBL (confi dence interval CI = 95 and P = 0.26). Conclusion:No strong evidence to support the diff erence between screw retained and cemented retained implant prosthesis in the amount of MBL as a measure for periimplantitis.

show abstract

Cemented and screw‐retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates

Cited by 374 publications

References 306 publications

Influence of Cusp Inclination and Type of Retention on Fracture Load of Implant-Supported Crowns

Influence of Cusp Inclination and Type of Retention on Fracture Load of Implant-Supported Crowns

Current knowledge of prosthetic rehabilitation using implants: a literature review

Impact of screw retained versus cement retained implant-supported prosthesis on peri-implantitis:A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About