Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions--a systematic review.

نویسندگان

  • Julia-Gabriela Wittneben
  • Christopher Millen
  • Urs Brägger
چکیده

PURPOSE To assess the survival outcomes and reported complications of screw- and cement-retained fixed reconstructions supported on dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS A Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Cochrane electronic database search from 2000 to September 2012 using MeSH and free-text terms was conducted. Selected inclusion and exclusion criteria guided the search. All studies were first reviewed by abstract and subsequently by full-text reading by two examiners independently. Data were extracted by two examiners and statistically analyzed using a random effects Poisson regression. RESULTS From 4,324 abstracts, 321 full-text articles were reviewed. Seventy-three articles were found to qualify for inclusion. Five-year survival rates of 96.03% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 93.85% to 97.43%) and 95.55% (95% CI: 92.96% to 97.19%) were calculated for cemented and screw-retained reconstructions, respectively (P = .69). Comparison of cement and screw retention showed no difference when grouped as single crowns (I-SC) (P = .10) or fixed partial dentures (I-FDP) (P = .49). The 5-year survival rate for screw-retained full-arch reconstructions was 96.71% (95% CI: 93.66% to 98.31). All-ceramic reconstruction material exhibited a significantly higher failure rate than porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) in cemented reconstructions (P = .01) but not when comparing screw-retained reconstructions (P = .66). Technical and biologic complications demonstrating a statistically significant difference included loss of retention (P ≤ .01), abutment loosening (P ≤ .01), porcelain fracture and/or chipping (P = .02), presence of fistula/suppuration (P ≤ .001), total technical events (P = .03), and total biologic events (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS Although no statistical difference was found between cement- and screw-retained reconstructions for survival or failure rates, screw-retained reconstructions exhibited fewer technical and biologic complications overall. There were no statistically significant differences between the failure rates of the different reconstruction types (I-SCs, I-FDPs, full-arch I-FDPs) or abutment materials (titanium, gold, ceramic). The failure rate of cemented reconstructions was not influenced by the choice of a specific cement, though cement type did influence loss of retention.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

Screw retained vs. cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis.

A fixed dental prosthesis can be secured to an endosseous implant via cementation (using a provisional or definitive cement) on an implant abutment that is screw retained to the implant or directly in the implant via screw retention. The clinical decision as to which retention system best suits the individual patient depends on several factors. The aim of this review is to present a detailed ov...

متن کامل

A systematic review of screw- versus cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations.

PURPOSE To systematically evaluate the survival and success of screw- versus cement-retained implant crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS The authors performed an electronic search of nine databases using identical MeSH phrases. Systematic evaluation and data extraction of the articles from 1966 through 2007 were completed by three reviewers and two clinical academicians. The major outcome variable ...

متن کامل

Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates.

OBJECTIVES To assess the 5-year survival rates and incidences of complications of cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions. METHODS An electronic Medline search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), and prospective and retrospective studies giving information on cemented and screw-retained single-unit and multiple-u...

متن کامل

Peri-implant bone loss in cement- and screw-retained prostheses: systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess and compare peri-implant marginal bone loss in cement- and screw-retained prostheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Electronic database and manual searches were undertaken to identify trials, prospective or retrospective studies reporting on radiographic marginal bone loss around dental implants restored with cement- and/or screw-re...

متن کامل

An alternative direct technique for the fabrication of an implant-supported, screw-retained fixed interim restoration.

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Yilmaz et al Lautensack et al 7. Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:719-28. 8. Okamoto M, Minagi S. Technique for removing a cemented superstructure from an implant abutment. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:241-2. 9. Chee WW, Torbati A, Albouy JP....

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants

دوره 29 Suppl  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2014