Share Page:

Volume 26 , Issue 5
September/October 2011

Pages 11021107

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

Joseph Nissan, DMD/Demitri Narobai, DMD/Ora Gross, DMD/Oded Ghelfan, DMD/Gavriel Chaushu, DMD, MSc

PMID: 22010095

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;26:11021107

Key words: cementation, implant-supported restoration, partial edentulism, screw retention

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2022 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us