TITLE:
Comparison of Different Implant-Supported Fixed Restoration Types: A Literature Review
AUTHORS:
Zeynep Sen Yilmaz, Nuran Yanikoglu, Merve Koseoglu
KEYWORDS:
Implant-Supported Restorations, Retention, Cementation, Screw
JOURNAL NAME:
Open Journal of Stomatology,
Vol.14 No.11,
November
22,
2024
ABSTRACT: Background: The screw and cement-retained implant-supported fixed prosthesis has advantages and disadvantages. However, current research comparing the properties of these restorations is lacking. Objectives: The aim of the study was to review the current literature on the properties of screw and cement retained implant supported restorations. Material and Methods: A literature search was conducted from January 2010 to December 2023, using 4 databases to identify research. Sixty studies met the inclusion criteria. Results: Cement-retained restorations have some advantages. Passive fit is easier to achieve, and eliminating occlusal access holes can help with the occlusal adjustments in cemented restorations. However, in case residual cement is not completely removed after cementation, it becomes a predisposing factor for peri-implantitis and marginal bone loss. The main advantage of screw-retained restorations is the retrievability, which can be achieved without damaging the restoration or fixture. However, in case the implant is not ideally positioned, the location of the screw access channel can negatively affect the aesthetics of the screw-retained restorations. In addition, porcelain fracture and screw loosening occur more frequently in screw-retained restoration. Conclusions: Screw and cement-retained restorations display specific advantages and disadvantages; nevertheless, the selection of one retention method over another depends on the clinical scenario.