Cross‐pinning: the philosophy of retrievability applied practically to fixed, implant‐supported prostheses

Gervais, MJ; Hatzipanagiotis, P; Pr, Wilson

doi:10.1111/j.1834-7819.2007.00013.x

Cited by 19 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Cross‐pin retention was indicated as the most frequent method for retaining an ISR by 15% of the respondents. The cited advantages of cross‐pin retention being predictable retrieval and retention, improved aesthetics and occlusal morphology 19–21 . The results suggest cross‐pin retention has been utilized instead of cement retention when DTF is not possible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists

Sambrook

Judge

Abuzaar

2012

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Implant supported restorations (ISRs) for the single implant may be cement retained or screw retained. Limited scientific evidence exists to support the superiority of a retention type for either implant or prosthetic success. The aim of this study was to assess preferences of Australian prosthodontists when restoring single implants. In particular, clinical practices for cross-pin retained implant supported restorations for a single implant were investigated. Methods: A written questionnaire comprised of seven questions, some of which had multiple parts and of both open-and closed-format, was sent to 124 Australian prosthodontists. The questionnaire asked recipients to identify: (1) their preference for retention choice when restoring a single implant; (2) the frequency of use; and (3) clinical practice when restoring a cross-pin retained restoration. Results: Seventy-seven per cent of respondents indicated that direct to fixture (DTF) retention was their first preference. DTF retention was also the most frequently employed restoration for single implants. Respondents indicated that crosspinned ISRs are employed to maintain retrievability or when DTF is not possible. The majority of respondents indicated they always or sometimes use a gasket with cross-pin retained restorations, though gasket type varied. Thirty-eight respondents (31%) indicated that they would never use a cross-pinned retained restoration for a single ISR. Conclusions: Australian prosthodontists prefer, and more frequently restore single implants, using DTF retention. Queensland prosthodontists prefer cement retained ISRs. In comparison, cross-pinned restorations tend to be the least favoured and least used retention type. In addition, variation in opinion exists regarding the need for a gasket and type of gasket to be placed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In comparison, 38 of the 97 respondents (39%) indicated they would never use a cross‐pinned restoration for a single ISR. The disadvantages of a cross‐pinned ISR include increased cost for restoration construction, 1 increased technical complexity (at a laboratory level), 1,19,21 and biologic complications related to leakage 21…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists

Sambrook

Judge

Abuzaar

2012

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The implants of both groups were restored with porcelain fused to metal (PFM) crowns fitted on abutments and retained by cross-pin (lateral prosthetic screw) to ensure retrievability. 6,14 For the Encode protocol, implant casts were sent to Biomet 3i scanning/milling center in Florida for scanning, CAD/CAM abutments fabrication, and an implant replica insertion in the cast. The milled abutments and the modified casts were sent back to the dental laboratory for final crown fabrication.…”

Section: Surgical and Restorative Protocolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study of encode protocol versus conventional protocol for restoring single implants: One‐year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

Abduo

Gade

Gill

et al. 2017

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A cross‐pinned ISR utilizes a transverse or cross‐pin screw, positioned on the palatal or lingual surface of the prosthesis, retaining the crown to the abutment. Use of a cross‐pin for crown retention not only allows predictable retrieval of an ISR on a poorly angulated implant 1–4 but also overcomes the problem of unpredictable retention associated with cement retained ISRs 2,5,6 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The cross‐pin retained implant supported restoration: a study of gasket placement and leakage

Sambrook¹,

Judge²

2012

Australian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Advantages of cross-pin retained implant supported restorations (ISRs) include predictable retrieval and predictable retention. Unlike direct to fixture (DTF) or cement retained restorations, the prosthetic design of a cross-pinned restoration retains gaps at the interfaces between the crown, abutment and cross-pin screw. These spaces permit leakage into the suprastructure and gasket placement has been recommended to prevent this leakage. Methods: Five different gaskets were assessed for their ability to prevent leakage into a cross-pinned ISR. The gaskets tested were: cement admixture on the cross-pin screw; cement admixture on the inner surface of the coping and the cross-pin screw; cement admixture on the inner surface of the coping only; cement admixture placed 1 mm from the margin of the coping and a filler placed in the abutment chimney. Results: Only gaskets which sealed both the cross-pin screw interface and the abutment-crown interface prevented leakage. A filler placed in the abutment chimney prevented leakage into this space but did not prevent fluid accumulating between the coping and abutment. Conservative placement of cement at the margin of the coping failed to prevent leakage. Conclusions: Cement gaskets may effectively prevent leakage into a cross-pinned ISR. However, the use of a cement as a gasket has to be weighed against the issue of predictable retrieval, cement extrusion and incomplete seating.

show abstract

Cross‐pinning: the philosophy of retrievability applied practically to fixed, implant‐supported prostheses

Cited by 19 publications

References 38 publications

Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists

Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists

A comparative study of encode protocol versus conventional protocol for restoring single implants: One‐year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

The cross‐pin retained implant supported restoration: a study of gasket placement and leakage

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About