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.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cement remnants were frequently associated with peri-implantitis. Recently, a shoulderless abutment was proposed, raising some concern about cement excess removal. To compare different cementation techniques for implant-supported restorations assessing the amount of cement remnants in the peri-implant sulcus. Additional aim was to compare the effect of these cementation techniques using two different abutment designs. Forty-six patients requiring double implant-supported restoration in the posterior maxilla were randomly divided in two groups according to the cementation modality: intraoral and extraoral. According to the abutment finishing line, implants in each patient were randomly assigned to shoulderless or chamfer subgroup. In the intraoral group, crowns were directly seated onto the titanium abutment. In the extraoral group, crowns were firstly seated onto a resin abutment replica and immediately removed, then cleansed of the cement excess and finally seated on the titanium abutment. After cement setting, in both groups, cement excess was carefully tried to remove. Three months later, framework/abutment complexes were disconnected and prepared for microscopic analysis: surface occupied by exposed cement remnants and marginal gaps were measured. Additionally, crown/abutment complexes were grinded, and voids of cement were measured at abutment/crown interface. Related-samples Friedman's two-way analysis of variance by ranks was used to detect differences between groups and subgroups (P ≤ 0.5). At the end of the study, a mean value of 0.45 mm(2) (±0.80), 0.38 mm(2) (±0.84), and 0.065 mm(2) (±0.13) and 0.07 mm(2) (±0.15) described surface occupied by cement remnants in shoulderless and chamfer abutment with intraoral cementation and shoulderless and chamfer abutment with extraoral cementation, respectively. A mean value of 0.40 mm(2) (±0.377), 0.41 mm(2) (±0.39) and 0.485 mm(2) (±0.47) and 0.477 mm(2) (±0.43) described cement voids at the abutment/crown interface; a mean value of 0.062 mm (±0.03), 0.064 mm (±0.35), 0.055 mm (±0.016) and 0.054 mm (±0.024) described marginal gaps. Statistics showed tendency of intraoral cementation to have significantly higher cement remnants compared with abutments with extraoral cementation groups. At the same time, the presence of voids was significantly higher in case of extraoral cementation. No significant differences between groups for the variable "gap". Despite the presence of more voids, extraoral cementation reduces cement excess. However, using low adhesivity cement and careful cement removal, a very limited quantity of cement remnants was observed also in the intraoral cementation. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
    Clinical Oral Implants Research 04/2015; DOI:10.1111/clr.12589 · 3.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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 localized in the molar mandibular region, over a period of 1 to 4 years. 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. 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. The cemented-retained restorations seem to prevent screw 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. Key words:Screw-retained restorations, cemented-retained restorations, screw loosening, peri-implant diseases and fracture ceramic veneering.
    02/2015; 7(1):e89-94. DOI:10.4317/jced.51708
  • 12/2015; 1(1). DOI:10.1186/s40729-015-0005-3


Available from
Aug 17, 2014