Peri-implant conditions and marginal bone loss around cemented and screw-retained single implant crowns in posterior regions: A retrospective cohort study with up to 4 years follow-up

Shi, Jia; Jie-Ni,; Liu, Zhuang; Zhang, Xiaomeng; Liu, Fan

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0191717

Cited by 19 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…11,20,21 For this reason, Sailer et al 11 raised the possibility of screwed protheses becoming the most popular even if both methods had presented high survival rate, which makes it harder for us to define the best option. In addition, other studies 19,23,24,25 did not observe significant difference between retention methods when considering marginal bone resorption, as they are within normal standards, which reinforces the importance of complete subgingival removal of cement excesses to prevent peri-implantitis and marginal bone loss.…”

Section: Summary Of the Findingsmentioning

confidence: 55%

Prosthetics on implants: cement or screw-retained? A review of the literature

Relvas¹,

Fellows²,

Sotelo³

et al. 2018

CRORJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The discovery of titanium osseointegrated implants enabled the development of screw or cement-retained dental prostheses. However, each retention method involves different aspects. Objective: this study aims at reviewing the literature of in vitro and in vivo studies of the last 7 years on the mechanical, biological, aesthetic and occlusal properties and the cost of screw and cementretained prostheses to identify what can promote greater longevity and economy by considering the patient's clinical framework. Data sources: Our method was based on the collection of scientific articles published in English from 2012 to 2018 in the PubMed database. Summary of the findings: we noted that in some clinical cases, a retention method was more appropriate than the other, as seen in the access to the posterior region or the palatal face of the crowns, the position/ angulation of implants in the anterior region, the patient's health and economic conditions. Both protheses can suffer or not from mechanical and biological complications. Reversibility can also be associated to cement-retained protheses. There are alternatives to screwed prosthetics to achieve satisfactory aesthetics in the anterior region despite being more expensive. Ideal occlusion tends to be more easily achieved by cemented prosthesis as it avoids prosthetics screws and the formation of crown holes, despite the contributions of correct planning followed by the analysis of static and in motion occlusions. Conclusion: each retention method has its advantages and disadvantages. Therefore,the best method is the one that best fits the characteristics and needs of each patient.

show abstract

Section: Summary Of the Findingsmentioning

confidence: 55%

Prosthetics on implants: cement or screw-retained? A review of the literature

Relvas¹,

Fellows²,

Sotelo³

et al. 2018

CRORJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shi et al 13 conducted a retrospective cohort study with a follow-up time of four years. The study explored the peri-implant conditions as well as the bone loss for the two dental implantation techniques, such as cement and screw implantation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…17,18 Interocclusal Space and Retention ✔ Due to the limitation of the interocclusal space, the screw retained implant reconstruction is required. 13 Provisionalization And Gingival Molding ✔ Between the two, the screw-retained implant reconstruction has more advantages as compared to the cement retained. It is because it achieves better contours of the tissues, its health, and soft tissue transfer.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is because it achieves better contours of the tissues, its health, and soft tissue transfer. 13,18,20 Passivity ✔ Cement-retained implant reconstruction is fit for passivity based on its buffer of cement space. Since passivity pose a greater technical challenge in screw based on its discrepancies in dimension along with complication of the screws such as loosening or fatigue fracture.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

<p>A Systematic Review of Screw versus Cement-Retained Fixed Implant Supported Reconstructions</p>

Hamed¹,

Mously²,

Alamoudi³

et al. 2020

CCIDE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…18,65,72,73 The types of prosthetic rehabilitation strategies described (fixed partial or total, single unit and overdenture) in the clinical trials selected is another relevant topic that must be underscored, because each type of technique results in unique masticatory dynamics and particular hygiene procedures. 74,75 Moreover, a large variability of functional loading protocols were described in the manuscripts selected. These factors combined, might have impacted the ability of the authors to significant statistical differences among the types of implants analyzed and functional loading baselines (immediate, premature or delayed).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%