Cemented and screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth restorations in the molar mandibular region: A retrospective comparison study after an observation period of 1 to 4 years
Loading...
Download
Official URL
Full text at PDC
Publication date
2014
Advisors (or tutors)
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
José V. Bagán
Citation
Ferreiroa, A., M. Penarrocha-Diago, G. Pradies, Mf. Sola-Ruiz, y R. Agustin-Panadero. «Cemented and screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth restorations in the molar mandibular region: A retrospective comparison study after an observation period of 1 to 4 years». Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, 2015, e89-94. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.51708.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival and compare the appearance of different mechanical and biological complications, in screw-retained and cemented-retained single-tooth implant-supported restorations licalized in the molar mandibular region, over a period of 1 to 4 years.
Material and methods: A retrospective study was carried out with a total of eighty implant-supported restorations, which were placed in eighty patients for prosthetic rehabilitation of a mandibular molar. Forty patients were rehabilitated with a cemented-retained restoration and the other forty with a screw-retained restoration. The presence of the following complications was recorded for both types of prostheses: Fractures of the ceramic veneering , loosening screws, mucositis and peri-implantitis. Debonding of the restoration was analyzed in the cemented-retained restoration group. The clinical survival of crowns was analyzed with a Kaplan-Meier test and the clinical complications were compared, using a Student t test and Log-rank test.
Results: 27 patients registered some complication. The average rate of complications was 37,5% for cemented-retained restorations and 30% for screw-retained restorations. the complications more common in the cemented-retained restoration were the presence of mucositis (14,87%), while in the screw-retained restorations was the loosening screw (20%). Student t test and Log-Rank test found significant differences (p=0,001) between the screw loosening and presence of mucositis.
Conclusions: The cemented-retained restorations seem to prevent screww loosening, but the presence of cement seem to increase the complications around the soft tissues, however in the screw-retained restorations the presence of mucositis and peri-implantitis are lower than cemented-retained restorations. The incidence of fracture of ceramic veneering was similar in both groups.