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

Abstract

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.

Incidence of abutment screw failure of single or splinted implant prostheses: A review and update on current clinical status

“…Rangert et al identified the prosthetic screw as the safety component of the implant system, advocating its ease of retrievability. The contemporary implant systems have eliminated or minimised the occlusal, accessory prosthetic screws for single implant rehabilitation, which coincides with a low clinical preference as well in a recent survey, and the abutment screw has become the primary safety feature of the system . However, the retrieval of a fractured abutment screw without damaging the remaining implant components has found to be often cumbersome.…”

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

“…Out of 73 implant crowns, 15 had mechanical complications of which 60% were related to cross‐pin loosening . However, this is a minor issue and may require addition of gasket which is a simple clinical procedure …”

“…29 However, this is a minor issue and may require addition of gasket which is a simple clinical procedure. 30 Despite the statistical similarity in survival rates of crowns fabricated on stock and Encode abutments at 1-year of clinical observation,…”

Investigation of the Association Between Cement Retention and Prevalent Peri‐Implant Diseases: A Cross‐Sectional Study

“…Meticulous review of the literature shows that attempts have been made to define specific indications for use of one type of retention in lieu of the other 3 . However, distinct schools of thought exist that favor one type of restoration‐to‐fixture retention versus the other 4 . It is not uncommon for groups of clinicians to use solely one type of retention in the majority of their clinical cases rather than attempting to personalize treatment planning 4 …”

“…However, distinct schools of thought exist that favor one type of restoration‐to‐fixture retention versus the other 4 . It is not uncommon for groups of clinicians to use solely one type of retention in the majority of their clinical cases rather than attempting to personalize treatment planning 4 …”