Share Page:

Volume 29 , Issue 6
November/December 2014

Pages 1406–1411

Immediate Occlusal Loading of Full-Arch Rehabilitations: Screw-Retained Versus Cement-Retained Prosthesis. An 8-Year Clinical Evaluation

Roberto Crespi, MD, MS/Paolo Capparè, MD, DMD/Giorgio Gastaldi, MD, DMD/Enrico Felice Gherlone, MD, DMD

PMID: 25397803
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3746

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival and success of screw-retained versus cement-retained implant restorations in immediately loaded implants at 8-year follow-up. Materials and Methods: Patients who were scheduled for full-arch ceramic prosthetic restorations were divided into two groups by randomization: in one group, prosthetic frameworks were screwed onto implants (screw-retained group, SRG), and in the second group, the frameworks were cemented on abutments (cement-retained group, CRG). Dental implants were placed both in postextraction and in healed sites. A temporary full-arch prosthesis was placed immediately after implant placement. Intraoral digital radiographic examinations (evaluating marginal bone levels) were made at baseline, 6 months, and each year after implant placement. Results: In 28 patients, 24 full arches and 192 implants were placed in the maxilla and 10 full arches and 80 implants in the mandible (17 rehabilitations in each group). After an 8-year follow-up period, a survival rate of 99.27% was reported for all implants. Within the first year after implant placement, bone loss was recorded as follows: the CRG showed mean bone levels of −1.23 ± 0.45 mm, while the SRG showed mean bone levels of −1.01 ± 0.33 mm. After a 3-year follow-up, a slight increase was found (0.30 ± 0.25 mm in CRG and 0.45 ± 0.29 mm in SRG). After that point, marginal bone levels remained stable over time, up to the 8-year follow-up. No statistically significant differences were found between groups (P > .05). Conclusion: Definitive cement- and screw-retained ceramic restorations are highly predictable, biocompatible, and esthetically pleasing, and the two groups presented no statistically significant differences in bone loss.

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.


© 2017 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