Long-Term Outcome of Cemented Versus Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Partial Restorations

被引:0
|
作者
Nissan, Joseph [1 ]
Narobai, Demitri [1 ]
Gross, Ora [1 ]
Ghelfan, Oded [1 ]
Chaushu, Gavriel [2 ]
机构
[1] Tel Aviv Univ, Maurice & Gabriela Goldschleger Sch Dent Med, Dept Oral Rehabil, IL-69978 Tel Aviv, Israel
[2] Tel Aviv Univ, Maurice & Gabriela Goldschleger Sch Dent Med, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, IL-69978 Tel Aviv, Israel
关键词
cementation; implant-supported restoration; partial edentulism; screw retention; FIXED PARTIAL DENTURES; METAL-CERAMIC CROWNS; SINGLE CROWNS; RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS; FRACTURE-RESISTANCE; IN-VITRO; COMPLICATIONS; PROSTHESES; SURVIVAL; ABUTMENT;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Purpose: The present study was designed to compare the long-term outcome and complications of cemented versus screw-retained implant restorations in partially edentulous patients. Materials and Methods: Consecutive patients with bilateral partial posterior edentulism comprised the study group. Implants were placed, and cemented or screw-retained restorations were randomly assigned to the patients in a split-mouth design. Follow-up (up to 15 years) examinations were performed every 6 months in the first year and every 12 months in subsequent years. The following parameters were evaluated and recorded at each recall appointment: ceramic fracture, abutment screw loosening, metal frame fracture, Gingival Index, and marginal bone loss. Results: Thirty-eight patients were treated with 221 implants to support partial prostheses. No implants during the follow-up period (mean follow-up, 66 +/- 47 months for screw-retained restorations [range, 18 to 180 months] and 61 +/- 40 months for cemented restorations [range, 18 to 159 months]). Ceramic fracture occurred significantly more frequently (P < .001) in screw-retained (38% +/- 0.3%) than in cemented (4% +/- 0.1%) restorations. Abutment screw loosening occurred statistically significantly more often (P = .001) in screw-retained (32% +/- 0.3%) than in cement-retained (9% +/- 0.2%) restorations. There were no metal frame fractures in either type of restoration. The mean Gingival Index scores were statistically significantly higher (P < .001) for screw-retained (0.48 +/- 0.5) than for cemented (0.09 +/- 0.3) restorations. The mean marginal bone loss was statistically significantly higher (P < .001) for screw-retained (1.4 +/- 0.6 mm) than for cemented (0.69 +/- 0.5 mm) restorations. Conclusion: The long-term outcome of cemented implant-supported restorations was superior to that of screw-retained restorations, both clinically and biologically. INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2011;26:1102-1107
引用
收藏
页码:1102 / 1107
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Alternative technique for investing abutments for screw-retained implant-supported restorations
    Ganddini, MR
    Tallents, RH
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2004, 92 (05): : 504 - 505
  • [2] Strain Development of Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Fixed Restorations: Procera Implant Bridge Versus Conventionally Cast Restorations
    Karl, Matthias
    Holst, Stefan
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2012, 25 (02) : 166 - 169
  • [3] Fracture resistance of implant-supported screw-retained zirconia-based molar restorations
    Honda, Junichi
    Komine, Futoshi
    Kamio, Shingo
    Taguchi, Kohei
    Blatz, Markus B.
    Matsumura, Hideo
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2017, 28 (09) : 1119 - 1126
  • [4] New abutment for a screw-retained, implant-supported crown
    Prisco, R
    Morgano, SM
    D'Amato, S
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2001, 85 (01): : 30 - 33
  • [5] CEMENTED AND SCREW-RETAINED IMPLANT-SUPPORTED RESTORATIONS MAY HAVE A COMPARABLE RISK FOR PERI-IMPLANT MUCOSITIS AND PERI-IMPLANTITIS
    Majid, Omer Waleed
    JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED DENTAL PRACTICE, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [6] In vitro investigation of marginal accuracy of implant-supported screw-retained partial dentures
    Koke, U
    Wolf, A
    Lenz, P
    Gilde, H
    JOURNAL OF ORAL REHABILITATION, 2004, 31 (05) : 477 - 482
  • [7] Screw versus cemented implant supported restorations
    Chee W.
    Jivraj S.
    British Dental Journal, 2006, 201 (8) : 501 - 507
  • [8] Screw loading and gap formation in implant-supported fixed restorations: Procera implant bridge vs. conventionally cast screw-retained restorations
    Winter, Werner
    Karl, Matthias
    QUINTESSENCE INTERNATIONAL, 2013, 44 (03): : 263 - 266
  • [9] A maxillary screw-retained, implant-supported diagnostic wax pattern
    Proussaefs, P
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2002, 87 (04): : 403 - 406
  • [10] The anterior cantilever in the implant-supported screw-retained mandibular prosthesis
    Brosky, AE
    Korioth, TWP
    Hodges, J
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2003, 89 (03): : 244 - 249