4.0 Review

A Comparison Between Screw- and Cement-Retained Implant Prostheses. A Literature Review

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 3, Pages 298-307

Publisher

ALLEN PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00146

Keywords

screw-retained; cement-retained; passivity; retention; review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Implant-supported restorations can be secured to implants with screws (screw-retained), or they can be cemented to abutments which are attached to implants with screws (cement-retained). This literature review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each method of retention from different aspects. These aspects include: ease of fabrication and cost, esthetics, access, occlusion, retention, incidence of loss of retention, retrievability, clinical prosthesis fit, restriction of implant position, effect on pen-implant tissue health, provisionalization, immediate loading, impression procedures, porcelain fracture, and clinical performance. Peer-reviewed literature published in the English language between 1955 and 2010 was reviewed using PubMed and hand searches. Since the choice of using either method of retention is still controversial, this review article offers some clinical situations that prefer one method of retention over the other. The review demonstrated that each method of retention has certain advantages and disadvantages; however, there are some clinical situations in which it is better to select one method of retention rather than the other.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available