» Articles » PMID: 35189643

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

Overview
Journal Eur J Dent
Publisher Thieme
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2022 Feb 21
PMID 35189643
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical and laboratory outcomes of angled screw channel (ASC) restorations and to summarize the influencing factors. An electronic search of the English language literature was performed in four databases and enriched by manual searches. Retrieved studies were screened against the predefined exclusion and inclusion criteria. Eight clinical and seven laboratory studies were eligible for the analysis. The risk of bias for included observational studies was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. Laboratory studies quality assessment method was adapted from previous published systematic reviews. Two clinical studies focused on technical outcomes and the rest reported the biological outcomes of the ASC restorations. Out of the seven laboratory studies, two studies investigated the fracture resistance of ASC restorations, four studies evaluated the reverse torque value of the nonaxially tightened screws, and one study evaluated both variables. The present review revealed that while the performance of ASC restorations is promising in short-term clinical studies, the evidence of their long-term reliability is still lacking. The laboratory studies indicated comparable fracture resistance results of the ASC restorations with the straight screw channel restorations. In addition, factors, such as initial torque value, configuration of the screw driver, screw design, abutment system, and the angulation of screw channel, were shown to influence the screw resistance to loosening.

Citing Articles

Factors Influencing the Screw Stability of Implant-Supported Single Crowns: An In Vitro Study.

Bishti S, Alsagher M, Homa M, Wolfart S, Tuna T Materials (Basel). 2025; 18(3).

PMID: 39942172 PMC: 11818324. DOI: 10.3390/ma18030506.


Comparison of Aesthetic, Mechanical Outcome, and Bone Loss in Angulated Screw Channels (ASCs) and Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Prosthesis: A Case-Control Study.

Rella E, De Angelis P, Papetti L, Damis G, Gasparini G, DAddona A Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(8).

PMID: 39195077 PMC: 11353712. DOI: 10.3390/dj12080233.


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.


Effects of diameters of implant and abutment screw on stress distribution within dental implant and alveolar bone: A three-dimensional finite element analysis.

Shen Y, Huang H, Hsu J, Fuh L J Dent Sci. 2024; 19(2):1126-1134.

PMID: 38618121 PMC: 11010681. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2023.12.020.


Comparative evaluation of biological, mechanical, and patient-reported outcomes of angulated screw channel abutments versus multi-unit abutment-retained single-unit implant restorations in the anterior esthetic zone: An- study.

Varshney N, Kusum C, Trivedi A, Kaushik M, Dubey P, Bali Y J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2023; 23(3):244-252.

PMID: 37929363 PMC: 10467320. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_101_23.


References
1.
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

2.
Wang J, Lerman G, Bittner N, Fan W, Lalla E, Papapanou P . Immediate versus delayed temporization at posterior single implant sites: A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2020; 47(10):1281-1291. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13354. View

3.
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

4.
Moraschini V, Poubel L, Ferreira V, Barboza E . Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014; 44(3):377-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2014.10.023. View

5.
Chen Z, Lin C, Li J, Wang H, Yu H . Influence of abutment height on peri-implant marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 122(1):14-21.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.003. View