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
  • [11] Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: Which is better?
    Chee, W
    Felton, DA
    Johnson, PF
    Sullivan, DY
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 1999, 14 (01) : 137 - 141
  • [12] Cemented implant-supported restorations
    Wolfart, Stefan
    Kern, Matthias
    IMPLANTOLOGIE, 2015, 23 (02): : 161 - 172
  • [13] Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: A critical review
    Michalakis, KX
    Hirayama, H
    Garefis, PD
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2003, 18 (05) : 719 - 728
  • [14] Factors Affecting the Decision to Use Cemented or Screw-Retained Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Critical Review
    Gomez-Polo, Miguel
    Ortega, Rocio
    Gomez-Polo, Cristina
    Celemin, Alicia
    Highsmith, Jaime Del Rio
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2018, 31 (01) : 43 - 54
  • [15] Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Araujo Lemos, Cleidiel Aparecido
    de Souza Batista, Victor Eduardo
    de Faria Almeida, Daniel Augusto
    Santiago Junior, Joel Ferreira
    Verri, Fellippo Ramos
    Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2016, 115 (04): : 419 - 427
  • [16] Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 10-year randomised controlled trial
    Vigolo, Paolo
    Mutinelli, Sabrina
    Givani, Andrea
    Stellini, Edoardo
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2012, 5 (04) : 355 - 364
  • [17] Use of polyvinyl siloxane to maintain peri-implant submucosal contours on removal of screw-retained implant-supported restorations
    Pawlak, Alexis
    Chee, Winston W.
    Park, Cheryl J.
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2025, 133 (02): : 367 - 369
  • [18] Fabrication of a screw-retained, implant-supported, provisional prosthesis: A clinical report
    Park, CJ
    Kim, DS
    Yi, YJ
    Cho, LR
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2004, 91 (05): : 409 - 413
  • [19] Cemented versus screw-retained posterior implant-supported single crowns: A 24-month randomized controlled clinical trial
    Wolfart, Stefan
    Rittich, Anne
    Gross, Karin
    Hartkamp, Oliver
    von der Stueck, Annabelle
    Raith, Stefan
    Reich, Sven
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2021, 32 (12) : 1484 - 1495
  • [20] CEMENT- AND SCREW-RETAINED IMPLANT-SUPPORTED RESTORATIONS SHOWED COMPARABLE MARGINAL BONE LOSS AND IMPLANT SURVIVAL RATE
    Alqutaibi, Ahmed Yaseen
    JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED DENTAL PRACTICE, 2017, 17 (02) : 107 - 109