A comparison of prosthetic outcomes of screw and cement-retained implant-supported restorations in the posterior region

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2008.05.012

Chinese Journal of Stomatological Research(Electronic Edition) ›› 2008, Vol. 02 ›› Issue (05): 504-512. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2008.05.012

• Original Articles • Previous Articles Next Articles

A comparison of prosthetic outcomes of screw and cement-retained implant-supported restorations in the posterior region

Sen-qing LIU¹, Fei-long DENG¹^,^†(), Hui ZHANG¹, Chenhan LIU¹, Hua ZHANG¹, Pei-fen ZHANG¹

^1. Guanghua School of Stomatology， Inshtitute of Stomatological Research， Sun Yat-sen University， Guangzhou 510055， China

Received:2008-06-15 Online:2008-10-01 Published:2025-03-11
Contact: Fei-long DENG

Abstract

Abstract:

Objectives

The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the short-term prosthetic outcomes of screw- and cement-retained implant-supported restorations after 1 year follow-up.

Methods

A total of 70 dental implants were placed in the posterior regions of 42 partially edentulous patients. 24 crowns were screw-retained， while 46 crowns were cementretained. Peri-implant marginal bone level， modified plaque index （mPLI）， modified sulcus bleeding index （mSBI） and esthetic fulfillment were recorded at the 12 months recall after implant loading.

Results

The mean peri-implant marginal bone lost in screw-retained group and cementretained group were 0.78 mm and 0.68 mm， respectively. The median values of mPLI and mSBI were both 1 in screw-retained group， and also 1 in cement-retained group. The median scores of esthetic fulfillment were both 1 in screw-retained and cement-retained group. The differences of marginal bone resorption， peri-implant soft tissue condition and patient satisfaction between two groups were statistically not significant （P ＞0.05）.

Conclusions

The short-term clinical outcomes of implant restorations are satisfactory， either screw-retained or cement-retained. The retention patterns seem to have few influences on the prosthetic outcomes of implant-supported restorations.

Key words: Screw-retained, Cement-retained, Implant-supported restoration

Sen-qing LIU, Fei-long DENG, Hui ZHANG, Chenhan LIU, Hua ZHANG, Pei-fen ZHANG. A comparison of prosthetic outcomes of screw and cement-retained implant-supported restorations in the posterior region[J]. Chinese Journal of Stomatological Research(Electronic Edition), 2008, 02(05): 504-512.

/ / Recommend

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-1366.2008.05.012

https://zhkqyxyjzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/EN/Y2008/V02/I05/504

Figures/Tables 8

References 12

1	Keller W， Bragger U， Mombelli A. Peri-implant microflora of implants with cemented and screw retained suprastructures. Clin Oral Implants Res， 1998，9（4）：209-217.
2	Weber HP， Kim DM， Ng MW， et al. Peri-implant soft-tissue health surrounding cement- and screw-retained implant restorations： a multicenter， 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res， 2006，17（4）：375-379.
3	Albrektsson T， Zarb G， Worthington P， et al. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants： A review and proposed criteria for success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants， 1986，1（1）：11-25.
4	Vigolo P， Givani A， Majzoub Z， et al. Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns： a 4-year prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants， 2004，19（2）：260-265.
5	Adell R， Lekholm U， Rockler B， et al. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg，1981，10（6）：387-416.
6	Buser D， Weber HP， Lang NP. Tissue integration of non-submerged implants. 1-year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants. Clin Oral Implants Res， 1990，1（1）：33-40.
7	Kan JY， Rungcharassaeng K， Umezu K， et al. Dimensions of peri-implant mucosa： an evaluation of maxillary anterior single implants in humans. J Periodontol， 2003，74（4）：557-562.
8	Dumbrigue HB， Abanomi AA， Cheng LL. Techniques to minimize excess luting agent in cement-retained implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent， 2002，87（1）：112-114.
9	Schwedhelm ER， Lepe X， Aw TC. A crown venting technique for the cementation of implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent， 2003，89（1）：89-90.
10	Yoshida K， Tanagawa M， Atsuta M. In-vitro solubility of three types of resin and conventional luting cements. J Oral Rehabil， 1998，25（4）：285-291.
11	Pan YH， Ramp LC， Lin CK， et al. Comparison of 7 luting protocols and their effect on the retention and marginal leakage of a cementretained dental implant restoration. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants， 2006，21（4）：587-592.
12	Michalakis KX， Hirayama H， Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations： a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants， 2003，18（5）：719-728.

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export

A comparison of prosthetic outcomes of screw and cement-retained implant-supported restorations in the posterior region

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge