Prosthetic outcome of cement‐retained implant‐supported fixed dental restorations: a systematic review

Abstract

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.

Screw loosening of different UCLA-type abutments after mechanical cycling

“…A systematic review compared the complications of screw-retained prosthesis showing that the most frequent complication was related to abutment screw loosening (10-55.5%). The incidence of abutment screw loosening was 4.3% in short-term studies and 10% in long-term studies 1 . Mechanical factors, such as the implant-abutment fit and the abutment screw preload are involved in the success of implant rehabilitation 6 .…”

“…The mechanical stability of implant-supported fixed restorations may be considered to improve long-term stability and minimize complications 1 . The stability of the connection between different implant parts is important for the success of the rehabilitation, especially for single tooth restorations.…”

Current knowledge of prosthetic rehabilitation using implants: a literature review

“…Thus, studies on the rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients, using single and multiple prostheses, as well as the development of over dentures attached to the implant, were being developed [1,2,10,11]. Research emerged in the following areas: cemented prostheses, retention and connection of the prostheses to implants, development of new prosthetic abutments, biomechanical studies, tooth and implant connections, force distribution in patients wear ingre movable prostheses, studies of implant materials, and application of previous clinical and laboratorial techniques only used in conventional prostheses [12]. Special attention was given to occlusal aspects since the prosthesis attached to the implant transmitted compressive and shear occlusal forces to the bone when contrasted tothe tooth traction force, which transferred to the bone in a healthy occlusion [13,14].…”

“…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]. These studies stated that cemented prostheses, such as unitary prostheses and non-extended fixed bridges, had high success rates when properly used.…”

Nazorg voor duurzaamheid en profijtelijkheid van kronen en bruggen

“…Loskomen is voor adhesiefbruggen zelfs de belangrijkste reden van mislukken. Volgens literatuuroverzichten is loskomen een complicatie die na een vervolgperiode van 5 tot 10 jaar voorkomt bij ongeveer 7% van de conventionele kronen, bij 4-16% van de op implantaten gecementeerde kronen, bij ongeveer 6% van de conventionele bruggen en bij ongeveer 21% van de adhesiefbruggen (Goodacre et al, 2003;Tan et al, 2004;Lulic et al, 2007;Chaar et al, 2011;.…”