Factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations: A clinical review

Ahmad Manawar, B. Dhanasekar, I. N. Aparna, Hina Naim

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim: As more and more dental practitioners are focusing on implant-supported fixed restorations, some clinicians favor the use of cement retained restorations while others consider screw retained prosthesis to be the best choice. Discussion In screw-retained restorations, the fastening screw provides a solid joint between the restoration and the implant abutment, while in cement-retained prostheses the restorative screw is eliminated to enhance esthetics, occlusal stability, and passive fit of the restorations. The factors that influence the type of fixation of the prostheses to the implants like passivity of the framework, ease of fabrication, occlusion, esthetics, accessibility, retention and retrievability are discussed in this article with scientific studies demonstrating superior outcomes of one technique over another. Screwretained implant restorations have an advantage of predictable retention, retrievability and lack of potentially retained subgingival cement. However, a few disadvantages exist such as precise placement of the implant for optimal and esthetic location of the screw access hole and obtaining passive fit. On the other hand, cement retained restorations eliminate unesthetic screw access holes, have passive fit of castings, reduced complexity of clinical and lab procedures, enhanced esthetics, reduced cost factors and non disrupted morphology of the occlusal table. Conclusion: This article compares the advantages, potential disadvantages and limitations of screw and cement retained restorations and their specific implications in the most common clinical situation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)43-47
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Osseointegration
Volume4
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 01-12-2012

Fingerprint

Esthetics
Prostheses and Implants
Tooth
Joints
Costs and Cost Analysis

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

@article{4843218594324bb78a0414b66cde1620,
title = "Factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations: A clinical review",
abstract = "Aim: As more and more dental practitioners are focusing on implant-supported fixed restorations, some clinicians favor the use of cement retained restorations while others consider screw retained prosthesis to be the best choice. Discussion In screw-retained restorations, the fastening screw provides a solid joint between the restoration and the implant abutment, while in cement-retained prostheses the restorative screw is eliminated to enhance esthetics, occlusal stability, and passive fit of the restorations. The factors that influence the type of fixation of the prostheses to the implants like passivity of the framework, ease of fabrication, occlusion, esthetics, accessibility, retention and retrievability are discussed in this article with scientific studies demonstrating superior outcomes of one technique over another. Screwretained implant restorations have an advantage of predictable retention, retrievability and lack of potentially retained subgingival cement. However, a few disadvantages exist such as precise placement of the implant for optimal and esthetic location of the screw access hole and obtaining passive fit. On the other hand, cement retained restorations eliminate unesthetic screw access holes, have passive fit of castings, reduced complexity of clinical and lab procedures, enhanced esthetics, reduced cost factors and non disrupted morphology of the occlusal table. Conclusion: This article compares the advantages, potential disadvantages and limitations of screw and cement retained restorations and their specific implications in the most common clinical situation.",
author = "Ahmad Manawar and B. Dhanasekar and Aparna, {I. N.} and Hina Naim",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "43--47",
journal = "Journal of Osseointegration",
issn = "2036-413X",
publisher = "Ariesdue srl",
number = "3",

}

Factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations : A clinical review. / Manawar, Ahmad; Dhanasekar, B.; Aparna, I. N.; Naim, Hina.

In: Journal of Osseointegration, Vol. 4, No. 3, 01.12.2012, p. 43-47.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations

T2 - A clinical review

AU - Manawar, Ahmad

AU - Dhanasekar, B.

AU - Aparna, I. N.

AU - Naim, Hina

PY - 2012/12/1

Y1 - 2012/12/1

N2 - Aim: As more and more dental practitioners are focusing on implant-supported fixed restorations, some clinicians favor the use of cement retained restorations while others consider screw retained prosthesis to be the best choice. Discussion In screw-retained restorations, the fastening screw provides a solid joint between the restoration and the implant abutment, while in cement-retained prostheses the restorative screw is eliminated to enhance esthetics, occlusal stability, and passive fit of the restorations. The factors that influence the type of fixation of the prostheses to the implants like passivity of the framework, ease of fabrication, occlusion, esthetics, accessibility, retention and retrievability are discussed in this article with scientific studies demonstrating superior outcomes of one technique over another. Screwretained implant restorations have an advantage of predictable retention, retrievability and lack of potentially retained subgingival cement. However, a few disadvantages exist such as precise placement of the implant for optimal and esthetic location of the screw access hole and obtaining passive fit. On the other hand, cement retained restorations eliminate unesthetic screw access holes, have passive fit of castings, reduced complexity of clinical and lab procedures, enhanced esthetics, reduced cost factors and non disrupted morphology of the occlusal table. Conclusion: This article compares the advantages, potential disadvantages and limitations of screw and cement retained restorations and their specific implications in the most common clinical situation.

AB - Aim: As more and more dental practitioners are focusing on implant-supported fixed restorations, some clinicians favor the use of cement retained restorations while others consider screw retained prosthesis to be the best choice. Discussion In screw-retained restorations, the fastening screw provides a solid joint between the restoration and the implant abutment, while in cement-retained prostheses the restorative screw is eliminated to enhance esthetics, occlusal stability, and passive fit of the restorations. The factors that influence the type of fixation of the prostheses to the implants like passivity of the framework, ease of fabrication, occlusion, esthetics, accessibility, retention and retrievability are discussed in this article with scientific studies demonstrating superior outcomes of one technique over another. Screwretained implant restorations have an advantage of predictable retention, retrievability and lack of potentially retained subgingival cement. However, a few disadvantages exist such as precise placement of the implant for optimal and esthetic location of the screw access hole and obtaining passive fit. On the other hand, cement retained restorations eliminate unesthetic screw access holes, have passive fit of castings, reduced complexity of clinical and lab procedures, enhanced esthetics, reduced cost factors and non disrupted morphology of the occlusal table. Conclusion: This article compares the advantages, potential disadvantages and limitations of screw and cement retained restorations and their specific implications in the most common clinical situation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84872456147&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84872456147&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:84872456147

VL - 4

SP - 43

EP - 47

JO - Journal of Osseointegration

JF - Journal of Osseointegration

SN - 2036-413X

IS - 3

ER -