2026-06-27T22:50:26Zhttps://docta.ucm.es/rest/oai/request

oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/340132024-10-22T16:07:58Zcom_20.500.14352_14col_20.500.14352_15

Ferreiroa Navarro, Alberto Peñarrocha Diago, Miguel Pradíes Ramiro, Guillermo Jesús Sola Ruiz, María Fernanda Agustín Panadero, Rubén 2023-06-19T13:33:31Z 2023-06-19T13:33:31Z 2014-07 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. 1989-5488 10.4317/jced.51708 https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/34013 http://dx.doi.org/10.4317/jced.51708 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. eng open access 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 article