We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26 (2011), No. 5     15. Oct. 2011
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 26 (2011), No. 5  (15.10.2011)

Page 1102-1107, PubMed:22010095

Long-Term Outcome of Cemented Versus Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Partial Restorations
Nissan, Joseph / Narobai, Demitri / Gross, Ora / Ghelfan, Oded / Chaushu, Gavriel
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.

Keywords: cementation, implant-supported restoration, partial edentulism, screw retention