Screwed or cemented dental implant prosthesis?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i15.23112Keywords:
Dental implants; Dental prosthesis, implant-supported; Bone resorption.Abstract
Dental implants became a viable alternative involving the Odontology field developing the aesthetics function and the patient’s comfort. The choice of which type of prosthesis connection is based on their clinical situation of each case and also for own professional preferences. There are two types of prosthetic restorations commonly used in Implantology: the cemented one and the screw retained prosthesis; both have their own advantages and limitations. The decision of which prosthetic method to use starts during the planning stage and can imply the aesthetics, dental occlusion, retention, effect over the peri-implant tissue, among other complications, influencing the implant survival rate. The peri-implant marginal bone loss is one of the problems related to the late failure of the osseointegration of the implants, being a relevant cause of failure, because it may promote the implant removal due to the osseointegration loss. The goal of this study was to analyze and identify the relation of different types of prosthesis (cemented and screw retained) through a literary point, with the peri-implant marginal bone loss, as well as relate the used type of prosthesis with the implant survival rate. Therefore, it is concluded that the marginal peri-implant bone loss owns multifactorial etiology and there are other factors that influence the implant survival, which is not possible to obtain a straight bone loss comparison with the types of prosthesis installed. Nevertheless, the screw-retained prosthesis presented more biomechanical complications such as the screw loosening and the ceramic fracture; and the cemented prosthesis showed more biological complications involving the peri- implant tissues.
References
Albrektsson, T., Zarb, G., Worthington, P., & Eriksson, A. R. (1986). The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, 1(1), 11–25.
Brügger, O. E., Bornstein, M. M., Kuchler, U., Janner, S. F., Chappuis, V., & Buser, D. (2015). Implant therapy in a surgical specialty clinic: an analysis of patients, indications, surgical procedures, risk factors, and early failures. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, 30(1), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3769
de Brandão, M. L., Vettore, M. V., & Vidigal Júnior, G. M. (2013). Peri-implant bone loss in cement- and screw-retained prostheses: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of clinical periodontology, 40(3), 287–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12041
Del'Acqua, M. A., Chávez, A. M., Compagnoni, M. A., & Molo, F., Jr (2010). Accuracy of impression techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, 25(4), 715–721.
Di Iorio, D., Sinjari, B., Feragalli, B., & Murmura, G. (2011). Biomechanical aspects in late implant failures: scanning electron microscopy analysis of four clinical cases. The journal of contemporary dental practice, 12(5), 356–360. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1059
Esposito, M., Hirsch, J., Lekholm, U., & Thomsen, P. (1999). Differential diagnosis and treatment strategies for biologic complications and failing oral implants: a review of the literature. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, 14(4), 473–490.
Ferreiroa, A., Peñarrocha-Diago, M., Pradíes, G., Sola-Ruiz, M. F., & Agustín-Panadero, R. (2015). Cemented and screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth restorations in the molar mandibular region: A retrospective comparison study after an observation period of 1 to 4 years. Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 7(1), e89–e94. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.51708
Firme, C. T., Vettore, M. V., Melo, M., & Vidigal, G. M., Jr (2014). Peri-implant bone loss around single and multiple prostheses: systematic review and meta-analysis. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, 29(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3316
Francis, L.; Pillai, S.B.; Lylajam, S. (2018) Clinical and radiological evaluation of screw-retained and cement-retained single-implant restorations - A comparative study. International journal of oral care and research, 6 (2),60-66.
Gaddale, R., Mishra, S. K., & Chowdhary, R. (2020). Complications of screw- and cement-retained implant-supported full-arch restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany), 13(1), 11–40.
Gómez-Polo, M., Ortega, R., Gómez-Polo, C., Celemin, A., & Del Rio Highsmith, J. (2018). Factors Affecting the Decision to Use Cemented or Screw-Retained Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Critical Review. The International journal of prosthodontics, 31(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5279
Hamed, M. T., Abdullah Mously, H., Khalid Alamoudi, S., Hossam Hashem, A. B., & Hussein Naguib, G. (2020). A Systematic Review of Screw versus Cement-Retained Fixed Implant Supported Reconstructions. Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 12, 9–16. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S231070
Jung, R. E., Pjetursson, B. E., Glauser, R., Zembic, A., Zwahlen, M., & Lang, N. P. (2008). A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clinical oral implants research, 19(2), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01453.x
Koller, C. D., Pereira-Cenci, T., & Boscato, N. (2016). Parameters Associated with Marginal Bone Loss around Implant after Prosthetic Loading. Brazilian dental journal, 27(3), 292–297. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201600874
Lee, A., Okayasu, K., & Wang, H. L. (2010). Screw- versus cement-retained implant restorations: current concepts. Implant dentistry, 19(1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181bb9033
Lee, M. Y., Heo, S. J., Park, E. J., & Park, J. M. (2013). Comparative study on stress distribution around internal tapered connection implants according to fit of cement- and screw-retained prostheses. The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 5(3), 312–318. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2013.5.3.312
Lemos, C. A., de Souza Batista, V. E., Almeida, D. A., Santiago Júnior, J. F., Verri, F. R., & Pellizzer, E. P. (2016). Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 115(4), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.08.026
Linkevicius, T., Puisys, A., Vindasiute, E., Linkeviciene, L., & Apse, P. (2013). Does residual cement around implant-supported restorations cause peri-implant disease? A retrospective case analysis. Clinical oral implants research, 24(11), 1179–1184. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02570.x
Linkevicius, T., Vindasiute, E., Puisys, A., & Peciuliene, V. (2011). The influence of margin location on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant restorations. Clinical oral implants research, 22(12), 1379–1384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02119.x
Mombelli, A., & Décaillet, F. (2011). The characteristics of biofilms in peri-implant disease. Journal of clinical periodontology, 38 Suppl 11, 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01666.x
Nissan, J., Narobai, D., Gross, O., Ghelfan, O., & Chaushu, G. (2011). Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, 26(5), 1102–1107.
Piattelli, A., Scarano, A., Paolantonio, M., Assenza, B., Leghissa, G. C., Di Bonaventura, G., Catamo, G., & Piccolomini, R. (2001). Fluids and microbial penetration in the internal part of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-abutment connections. Journal of periodontology, 72(9), 1146–1150. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2000.72.9.1146
Pjetursson, B. E., Tan, K., Lang, N. P., Brägger, U., Egger, M., & Zwahlen, M. (2004). A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clinical oral implants research, 15(6), 667–676. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01120.x
Pye, A. D., Lockhart, D. E., Dawson, M. P., Murray, C. A., & Smith, A. J. (2009). A review of dental implants and infection. The Journal of hospital infection, 72(2), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2009.02.010
Quirynen, M., De Soete, M., & van Steenberghe, D. (2002). Infectious risks for oral implants: a review of the literature. Clinical oral implants research, 13(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130101.x
Radaelli, M., Federizzi, L., Nascimento, G. G., Leite, F., & Boscato, N. (2020). Early-predictors of marginal bone loss around morse taper connection implants loaded with single crowns: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of periodontal research, 55(2), 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/jre.12699
Romanos, G. E., Javed, F., Delgado-Ruiz, R. A., & Calvo-Guirado, J. L. (2015). Peri-implant diseases: a review of treatment interventions. Dental clinics of North America, 59(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2014.08.002
Sailer, I., Mühlemann, S., Zwahlen, M., Hämmerle, C. H., & Schneider, D. (2012). Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clinical oral implants research, 23 Suppl 6, 163–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02538.x
Sakka, S., Baroudi, K., & Nassani, M. Z. (2012). Factors associated with early and late failure of dental implants. Journal of investigative and clinical dentistry, 3(4), 258–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-1626.2012.00162.x
Shadid, R., & Sadaqa, N. (2012). A comparison between screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. A literature review. The Journal of oral implantology, 38(3), 298–307. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00146
Sherif, S., Susarla, S. M., Hwang, J. W., Weber, H. P., & Wright, R. F. (2011). Clinician- and patient-reported long-term evaluation of screw- and cement-retained implant restorations: a 5-year prospective study. Clinical oral investigations, 15(6), 993–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0460-4.
Silva, G. C., Cornacchia, T. M., de Magalhães, C. S., Bueno, A. C., & Moreira, A. N. (2014). Biomechanical evaluation of screw- and cement-retained implant-supported prostheses: a nonlinear finite element analysis. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 112(6), 1479–1488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.06.010
Ueda, T., Kremer, U., Katsoulis, J., & Mericske-Stern, R. (2011). Long-term results of mandibular implants supporting an overdenture: implant survival, failures, and crestal bone level changes. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, 26(2), 365–372.
Vigolo, P., Mutinelli, S., Givani, A., & Stellini, E. (2012). Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 10-year randomised controlled trial. European journal of oral implantology, 5(4), 355–364.
Wadhwani, C., Rapoport, D., La Rosa, S., Hess, T., & Kretschmar, S. (2012). Radiographic detection and characteristic patterns of residual excess cement associated with cement-retained implant restorations: a clinical report. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 107(3), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60046-8
Wadhwani, C., Rapoport, D., La Rosa, S., Hess, T., & Kretschmar, S. (2012). Radiographic detection and characteristic patterns of residual excess cement associated with cement-retained implant restorations: a clinical report. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 107(3), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60046-8
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Graziele Parize; Taísa Iara Pestana; Ronald Farhat Cardoso; Yeon Jung Kim; Débora Pallos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
