Screw retained vs. cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis.

Wittneben, Julia; Joda, Tim Alexander; Weber, Hans-Peter; Brägger, Urs (2017). Screw retained vs. cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Periodontology 2000, 73(1), pp. 141-151. Wiley 10.1111/prd.12168

Text Wittneben_et_al-2017-Periodontology_2000.pdf - Published Version Restricted to registered users only Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (744kB)

A fixed dental prosthesis can be secured to an endosseous implant via cementation (using a provisional or definitive cement) on an implant abutment that is screw retained to the implant or directly in the implant via screw retention. The clinical decision as to which retention system best suits the individual patient depends on several factors. The aim of this review is to present a detailed overview of the factors potentially influencing whether to choose screw retention or cement retention. These factors include the individual indication, advantages and disadvantages of the different retention mechanisms, the retention provided, retrievability, provisionalization, esthetics and clinical performance, including failures and complications. The results of recently published systematic reviews on this topic are discussed and an overview is provided. A decision tree is presented to facilitate the clinical selection of the retention type. This overview concludes that the choice of retention type (screw retained or cement retained) might not influence the overall survival of the implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis, but may be responsible for the development of certain complications. The decision may depend on technical feasibility and on weighing the pros and cons.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

2 since deposited on 25 Jul 2019
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item