Factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations: a clinical review
Aim: As more and more dental practitioners are focusing on implant-supported fixed restorations, some clinicians favor the use of cement retained restorations while others consider screw retained prosthesis to be the best choice. Discussion: In screw-retained restorations, the fastening screw provi...
Main Authors: | , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Ariesdue
2012-10-01
|
Series: | Journal of Osseointegration |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://www.journalofosseointegration.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/jo_2012_4_3_2.pdf |
id |
doaj-0904d79cdef74760afc04a957f129f4d |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-0904d79cdef74760afc04a957f129f4d2020-11-25T03:50:52ZengAriesdueJournal of Osseointegration2036-413X2036-41212012-10-01434347Factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations: a clinical reviewAhmad Manawar0B. Dhanasekar1I. N. Aparna2Hina Naim3Assistant professor, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal (Karnataka), IndiaProfessor, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal (Karnataka), IndiaProfessor and Head, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal (Karnataka), IndiaMelaka Manipal Medical College, Faculty of Dentistry, Manipal (Karnataka), IndiaAim: As more and more dental practitioners are focusing on implant-supported fixed restorations, some clinicians favor the use of cement retained restorations while others consider screw retained prosthesis to be the best choice. Discussion: In screw-retained restorations, the fastening screw provides a solid joint between the restoration and the implant abutment, while in cement-retained prostheses the restorative screw is eliminated to enhance esthetics, occlusal stability, and passive fit of the restorations. The factors that influence the type of fixation of the prostheses to the implants like passivity of the framework, ease of fabrication, occlusion, esthetics, accessibility, retention and retrievability are discussed in this article with scientific studies demonstrating superior outcomes of one technique over another. Screwretained implant restorations have an advantage of predictable retention, retrievability and lack of potentially retained subgingival cement. However, a few disadvantages exist such as precise placement of the implant for optimal and esthetic location of the screw access hole and obtaining passive fit. On the other hand, cement retained restorations eliminate unesthetic screw access holes, have passive fit of castings, reduced complexity of clinical and lab procedures, enhanced esthetics, reduced cost factors and non disrupted morphology of the occlusal table. Conclusion: This article compares the advantages, potential disadvantages and limitations of screw and cement retained restorations and their specific implications in the most common clinical situation.http://www.journalofosseointegration.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/jo_2012_4_3_2.pdfCement-retained implant prosthesisScrew-retained implant prosthesis |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Ahmad Manawar B. Dhanasekar I. N. Aparna Hina Naim |
spellingShingle |
Ahmad Manawar B. Dhanasekar I. N. Aparna Hina Naim Factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations: a clinical review Journal of Osseointegration Cement-retained implant prosthesis Screw-retained implant prosthesis |
author_facet |
Ahmad Manawar B. Dhanasekar I. N. Aparna Hina Naim |
author_sort |
Ahmad Manawar |
title |
Factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations: a clinical review |
title_short |
Factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations: a clinical review |
title_full |
Factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations: a clinical review |
title_fullStr |
Factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations: a clinical review |
title_full_unstemmed |
Factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations: a clinical review |
title_sort |
factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations: a clinical review |
publisher |
Ariesdue |
series |
Journal of Osseointegration |
issn |
2036-413X 2036-4121 |
publishDate |
2012-10-01 |
description |
Aim: As more and more dental practitioners are focusing on implant-supported fixed restorations, some clinicians favor the use of cement retained restorations while others consider screw retained prosthesis to be the best choice.
Discussion: In screw-retained restorations, the fastening screw provides a solid joint between the restoration and the implant abutment, while in cement-retained prostheses the restorative screw is eliminated to enhance esthetics, occlusal stability, and passive fit of the restorations. The factors that influence the type of fixation of the prostheses to the implants like passivity of the framework, ease of fabrication, occlusion, esthetics, accessibility, retention and retrievability are discussed in this article with scientific studies demonstrating superior outcomes of one technique over another. Screwretained implant restorations have an advantage of predictable retention, retrievability and lack of potentially retained subgingival cement. However, a few disadvantages exist such as precise placement of the implant for optimal and esthetic location of the screw access hole and obtaining passive fit. On the other hand, cement retained restorations eliminate unesthetic screw access holes, have passive fit of castings, reduced complexity of clinical and lab procedures, enhanced esthetics, reduced cost factors and non disrupted morphology of the occlusal table.
Conclusion: This article compares the advantages, potential disadvantages and limitations of screw and cement retained restorations and their specific implications in the most common clinical situation. |
topic |
Cement-retained implant prosthesis Screw-retained implant prosthesis |
url |
http://www.journalofosseointegration.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/jo_2012_4_3_2.pdf |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT ahmadmanawar factorsinfluencingsuccessofcementversusscrewretainedimplantrestorationsaclinicalreview AT bdhanasekar factorsinfluencingsuccessofcementversusscrewretainedimplantrestorationsaclinicalreview AT inaparna factorsinfluencingsuccessofcementversusscrewretainedimplantrestorationsaclinicalreview AT hinanaim factorsinfluencingsuccessofcementversusscrewretainedimplantrestorationsaclinicalreview |
_version_ |
1724490219566137344 |