LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

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.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help