Prosthetic outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed dental restorations: a systematic review.

Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Albert-Ludwigs University, Freiburg, Germany.
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation (Impact Factor: 1.93). 03/2011; 38(9):697-711. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2011.02209.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The aim of the article is to assess the current literature in terms of the prosthetic outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations, as well as to determine the type of cement that can be recommended for clinical application. A review of the literature published up to May 2010 was conducted to identify clinical studies about cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations. The search strategy applied was a combination of MeSH terms and free text words, including the following keywords: implants, implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), bridges, implant-supported single crowns (SCs), cement-retained, cement fixation, cement, cementation, cement failure, retention, and loss of retention, technical complications, mechanical complications, prosthetic complication, retrievability and maintenance. Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. The studies were divided into two categories: 15 short-term clinical studies with an observation period of less than 5 years, and 17 long-term clinical studies with an observation period of 5 years and more. The most common technical complications of cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations were loss of retention, chipping and abutment screw loosening. The results of the current review revealed no guidelines about cement or cementation procedures. It may be stated that despite the questionable retrievability of cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations, this treatment modality is a reliable and effective option, especially for implant-supported SCs and short-span FDPs. The literature does not provide accurate information about the clinical outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations nor about the ideal type of cement that facilitates stability and maintains retrievability. Standardised randomised clinical trials will provide valuable information to this issue.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AIM: To evaluate the loss of applied torque (detorque) values in cast and pre-machined abutments for external hex abutment/implant interface of single implant-supported prostheses subjected to mechanical cycling. METHODS: Ten metal crowns were fabricated using two types of UCLA abutments: cast and pre-machined with metal base in NiCrTi alloy and tightened to regular external hex implants with a titanium alloy screw, with an insertion torque of 32, measured with a digital torque gauge. Samples were embedded with autopolymerizing acrylic resin in a stainless steel cylindrical matrix, and positioned in an electromechanical machine. Dynamic oblique loading of 120 N was applied during 5 x 105 cycles. Then, each sample was removed from the resin and detorque values were measured using the same digital torque gauge. The difference of the initial (torque) and final (detorque) measurement was registered and the results were expressed as percentage of initial torque. The results of torque loss were expressed as percentage of the initial torque and subjected to statistical analysis by the Student's t-test (p<0.05) for comparisons between the test groups. RESULTS: Statistical analysis demonstrated that mechanical cycling reduced the torque of abutments without significant difference between cast or pre-machined UCLA abutments (p=0.908). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it may be concluded that the mechanical cycling, corresponding to one-year use, reduced the torque of the samples regardless if cast or pre-machined UCLA abutments were used.
    Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences 09/2013; 12(3):228-232.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rehabilitation with implant-supported fixed prostheses is a predictable modality to restore lost function and esthetics; however, fixed restorations are subject to biological and prosthetic complications, which may represent a problem in the long-term. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term survival and complication rates of fixed restorations supported by Morse-taper connection implants.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 06/2014; · 3.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Statement of problem The mechanical stability of the prosthetic components in the implant-prosthesis complex is essential to the long-term success of the restorations. However, little is known about the differences in the biomechanical behavior of screw- and cement-retained prostheses. Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the preload maintenance, stresses, and displacements of prosthetic components of screw- and cement-retained implant-supported prostheses by using the finite element method in a nonlinear analysis. Material and methods Two 3-dimensional models were constructed: implant-supported fixed partial prostheses with 3 elements retained either by screws (SFP) or cement (CFP). After the simulation of screw tightening, the preload was calculated for both prostheses. Then vertical and oblique loads (100 N) were applied on the models. The preload was identified, the maximum von Mises equivalent stresses (SEQV) were obtained on the screws, and the displacement among the abutment, the implant, and screw was identified by observing the penetration and gap in the contact interfaces. Results Under vertical load, there was a higher decrease in the preload and in the SEQV on the screw in the SFP. Under oblique load, the SEQV was 24% higher on the screw of the SFP. In the displacement analysis under vertical load, penetration was concentrated in the threads of the screw in the SFP and between the abutment and implant in the CFP. The gap was 118% greater for the SFP and was concentrated on the abutment extension. Under oblique load, the displacement pattern was similar for both prostheses, but with values 66% higher for penetration and 96% higher for gap for the SFP. Conclusions The SFP showed a higher biomechanical risk of failure than the CFP.
    Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 12/2014; · 1.42 Impact Factor


Available from
Aug 17, 2014