» Articles » PMID: 15101598

Cemented Versus Screw-retained Implant-supported Single-tooth Crowns: a 4-year Prospective Clinical Study

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2004 Apr 23
PMID 15101598
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this controlled prospective clinical study was to compare cemented and screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns followed for 4 years following prosthetic rehabilitation with respect to peri-implant marginal bone levels, peri-implant soft tissue parameters, and prosthetic complications.

Materials And Methods: Twelve consecutive patients were selected from a patient population attending the Implantology Department at the University of Padova. They all presented with single-tooth bilateral edentulous sites in the canine/premolar/molar region with adequate bone width, similar bone height at the implant sites, and an occlusal scheme that allowed for the establishment of identical occlusal cusp/fossa contacts. Each patient received 2 identical implants (1 in each edentulous site). One was randomly selected to be restored with a cemented implant-supported single-tooth crown, and the other was restored with a screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crown. Data on peri-implant marginal bone levels and on soft tissue parameters were collected 4 years after implant placement and analyzed to determine whether there was a significant difference with respect to the method of retention (cemented versus screw-retained).

Results: All patients completed the study. All 24 implants survived, resulting in a cumulative implant success rate of 100%. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between the 2 groups with respect to peri-implant marginal bone levels and soft tissue parameters.

Discussion: The data obtained with this study suggested that the choice of cementation versus screw retention for single-tooth implant restorations is likely not based on clinical results but seems to be based primarily on the clinician's preference.

Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, the results indicate that there was no evidence of different behavior of the peri-implant marginal bone and of the peri-implant soft tissue when cemented or screw-retained single-tooth implant restorations were provided for this patient population.

Citing Articles

Long-term clinical study of fixed prosthetic rehabilitation using one-piece narrow-diameter implants: a retrospective study.

Kim J, Nam J, Chang N, Yi Y J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2025; 50(6):343-349.

PMID: 39743331 PMC: 11701504. DOI: 10.5125/jkaoms.2024.50.6.343.


An Trial to Estimate the Retention Ability of Luting Agents Utilized with Dental Implant-Supported Prosthesis.

Ahsan A, Khushboo B, Kumar A, Kumari S, Poojary B, Dixit A J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022; 14(Suppl 1):S541-S544.

PMID: 36110724 PMC: 9469460. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_150_22.


Retrospective Clinical Study of a Freely Removable Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prosthesis by a Microlocking System.

Bae E, Cho W, Bae H, Lee S, Kim T, Huh J Biomed Res Int. 2020; 2020:7929585.

PMID: 33204715 PMC: 7655254. DOI: 10.1155/2020/7929585.


In Vitro Simulation of Dental Implant Bridges Removal: Influence of Luting Agent and Abutments Geometry on Retrievability.

Lugas A, Terzini M, Zanetti E, Schierano G, Manzella C, Baldi D Materials (Basel). 2020; 13(12).

PMID: 32575862 PMC: 7345726. DOI: 10.3390/ma13122797.


Effect of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength of luting cements used with implant-supported prosthesis: An study.

Degirmenci K, Saridag S J Adv Prosthodont. 2020; 12(2):75-82.

PMID: 32377320 PMC: 7183856. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2020.12.2.75.