Influence of screw access on the retention of cement-retained implant prostheses

Retention Strength after Compressive Cyclic Loading of Five Luting Agents Used in Implant-Supported Prostheses

“…Therefore, these cement types should not be used in those cases where the dentist needs to retrieve the crowns, unless the technique of cement-screw-retained restoration is used, which consists of making a hole in the occlusal surface of the crown to allow direct access to the abutment screw. This technique does not appear to significantly decrease the cement retention strength [13]. For the compomer (Stay Bond KDM) and glass ionomer (Fuji I Capsule) cement types, the retention strength decreased after compressive loading by about half (50%) and by three-fifths (64%) in the case of resin urethane-based (Premier Implant Cement) cement.…”

“…The dental literature evaluates and compares the retention of temporary cement types under different conditions and for different designs, and it has been reported that the most common complication is prosthesis debonding [6–12]. However, the high cost of implant-supported prostheses makes patients perceive this complication as unacceptable and obliges the prosthodontist to increase retention strength, using permanent cement or a screw-retained prosthesis [6, 13–16]. Regardless of the geometry of the abutment and other mechanical and biological factors that can strongly influence the retentiveness of the cement, the retention strength and degree of retrievability of the cemented restorations depend on the chosen cement, and, by definition, permanent cement types are those that offer the greatest retention.…”

“…Regardless of the geometry of the abutment and other mechanical and biological factors that can strongly influence the retentiveness of the cement, the retention strength and degree of retrievability of the cemented restorations depend on the chosen cement, and, by definition, permanent cement types are those that offer the greatest retention. However, the greatest disadvantage of permanent cement is the lack of retrievability, and yet their clinical use is common, with frequent research carried out to compare their retention strength [6, 10, 11, 13, 17–23]. Urethane-based resin, compomer, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, and resin composite are some of the kinds of cement available and used clinically to cement fixed partial prostheses to implant abutments [5].…”

Assessing stability of Neodent Morse taper implants through reverse torque technique testing: a preliminary study in rabbits

“…5,13,15,17 Another point that favors this methodology is the selection of a device that has been used in numerous researches and different areas, thus offering a great deal of information of high precision. 18,19,20,21,22 More precise information about the technique and the device used in the stud- …”

Effect of Different CAD/CAM Techniques on Marginal accuracy, Color matching and Retention of Cemented versus Screw retained Implant-supported Crowns.

“…Screw retained prosthesis showed 83.4% success in comparison with 93.2% showed by cement retained , although the results are not significant (P>0.05). Screw retained protheses show a more accurate fit at the abutment margin, however they show less esthetics appearance (4) .Cemented restorations show more simplicity of use, passivity of fit and improved esthetics (5) , however removal of cement from subgingival margins has been shown to be unpredictable (6) .…”