Aesthetic Outcomes and Peri-Implant Health of Angled Screw Retained Implant Restorations Compared with Cement Retained Crowns: Medium Term Follow-Up

Overview

Journal J Funct Biomater

Specialty Biomedical Engineering

Date 2021 Jun 2

PMID 34065705

Citations 3

Authors

Livia Nastri

Ludovica Nucci

Vincenzo Grassia

Rino Miraldi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Single tooth implant restorations in the aesthetic area are a demanding challenge. If a complete osseointegration is mandatory, the final result has to result in a higher standard of biomimetic and soft tissue health among natural teeth. This outcome is traditionally pursued by cementing crowns over individualized abutments. However, in recent years, the need for controlling peri-implant health and the preference towards a retrievable solution has led to an increase in screw-retained crowns, which is not always applicable when the implant axis is not ideal. In the aesthetic area, the use of a novel technical solution represented by the angled screw channel (ASC) of the abutment has been proposed in order to match the advantages of the screwed solution with the aesthetic demands. The aim of this study was to compare ASC crowns to cemented crowns (CC) in single implant restorations using the white esthetic score (WES) and pink esthetic score (PES) at the crown delivery and at a follow-up of a minimum of 2 years. Peri-implant health and marginal bone loss (MBL) were also evaluated. The mean follow-up was 44.3 months, with a mean MBL of 0.22 mm in the ASC group and 0.29 mm in the CC group. The total WES/PES score was 16.6 for ASC, compared with 17.3 for CC at baseline, and 16.2 and 17.1, respectively, at follow-up. Both of the groups reached a high WES/PES, and this was maintained over time, without signs of peri-implant diseases or bone loss, regardless of the choice of connection. In conclusion, ASC can be adopted in cases where the implant axis is not ideal, with aesthetic and functional results that are comparable to implants restored by cemented crowns.

Citing Articles

The mechanical complications and behavior of angulated dental implant abutment systems versus conventional abutments, a narrative review.

Albakri A Saudi Dent J. 2024; 36(8):1072-1077.

PMID: 39176153 PMC: 11337959. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2024.06.002.

Clinical decision-making of anterior implant abutment.

Yu H, Sun M, Wang Z Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2024; 40(5):504-512.

PMID: 38596970 PMC: 9588866. DOI: 10.7518/hxkq.2022.05.002.

Clinical and Laboratory Outcomes of Angled Screw Channel Implant Prostheses: A Systematic Review.

Rasaie V, Abduo J, Falahchai M Eur J Dent. 2022; 16(3):488-499.

PMID: 35189643 PMC: 9507569. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740298.

References

Shi J, Lv X, Gu Y, Lai H . Angulated screw-retained and cemented implant crowns following flapless immediate implant placement in the aesthetic region: A 1-year prospective cohort study. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2020; 13(3):269-277. View

Kim Y, Lim G, Lee J, Jeong S . Marginal bone level changes in association with different vertical implant positions: a 3-year retrospective study. J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2017; 47(4):231-239. PMC: 5577441. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2017.47.4.231. View

Michalakis K, Hirayama H, Garefis P . Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003; 18(5):719-28. View

Segal P, Makhoul A, Eger M, Lucchina A, Winocur E, Mijiritsky E . Preliminary Study to Evaluate Marginal Bone Loss in Cases of 2- and 3-Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Prostheses of the Posterior Mandible. J Craniofac Surg. 2018; 30(4):1068-1072. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004855. View

Wittneben J, Joda T, Weber H, Bragger U . Screw retained vs. cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Periodontol 2000. 2016; 73(1):141-151. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12168. View

Opler R, Wadhwani C, Chung K . The effect of screwdriver angle variation on the off-axis implant abutment system and hexalobular screw. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 123(3):524-528. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.01.008. View

Afrashtehfar K, Assery M, Bryant S . Aesthetic Parameters and Patient-Perspective Assessment Tools for Maxillary Anterior Single Implants. Int J Dent. 2021; 2021:6684028. PMC: 7932805. DOI: 10.1155/2021/6684028. View

Shadid R, Sadaqa N . A comparison between screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. A literature review. J Oral Implantol. 2010; 38(3):298-307. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00146. View

Swamidass R, Kan J, Kattadiyil M, Goodacre C, Lozada J . Abutment screw torque changes with straight and angled screw-access channels. J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 125(4):675-681. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.01.018. View

10.

Pol C, Raghoebar G, Maragkou Z, Cune M, Meijer H . Full-zirconia single-tooth molar implant-supported restorations with angulated screw channel abutments: A 1-year prospective case series study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 22(1):138-144. PMC: 7064919. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12872. View

11.

Vigolo P, Mutinelli S, Givani A, Stellini E . Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 10-year randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2013; 5(4):355-64. View

12.

Anitua E, Fernandez-de-Retana S, Alkhraisat M . Survival and Marginal Bone Loss of Dental Implants Supporting Cad-Cam Angled Channel Restorations: A Split-Mouth Retrospective Study. Eur J Dent. 2020; 14(2):194-199. PMC: 7274818. DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1709895. View

13.

Gjelvold B, Kisch J, Chrcanovic B . A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Immediate Loading and Delayed Loading of Single-Tooth Implants: 5-Year Results. J Clin Med. 2021; 10(5). PMC: 7961588. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10051077. View

14.

Hebel K, Gajjar R . Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 77(1):28-35. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70203-8. View

15.

C Greer A, Hoyle P, Vere J, Wragg P . Mechanical Complications Associated with Angled Screw Channel Restorations. Int J Prosthodont. 2017; 30(3):258-259. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5150. View

16.

Wittneben J, Millen C, Bragger U . Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions--a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29 Suppl:84-98. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g2.1. View

17.

Chee W, Jivraj S . Screw versus cemented implant supported restorations. Br Dent J. 2006; 201(8):501-507. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4814157. View

18.

Gjelvold B, Sohrabi M, Chrcanovic B . Angled Screw Channel: An Alternative to Cemented Single-Implant Restorations--Three Clinical Examples. Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29(1):74-6. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4686. View

19.

Belser U, Grutter L, Vailati F, Bornstein M, Weber H, Buser D . Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores. J Periodontol. 2009; 80(1):140-51. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2009.080435. View

20.

Garcia-Gazaui S, Razzoog M, Sierraalta M, Saglik B . Fabrication of a screw-retained restoration avoiding the facial access hole: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114(5):621-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.06.007. View