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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ahmad Manawar, B. Dhanasekar, I. N. Aparna, Hina Naim
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