Retrospective evaluation of temporary cemented, tooth and implant supported fixed partial dentures

Heinemann, Friedhelm; Mündt, Torsten; Biffar, Reiner

doi:10.1016/s1010-5182(06)60019-x

Cited by 35 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The semipermanent FDP fi xation on copings and implant abutments seems to prevent tooth intrusions after loss of retention. Such results are in accordance with a previous report [12] and with other studies using permanently Brought to you by | Simon Fraser University Authenticated Download Date | 6/12/15 8:25 PM cemented tooth-implant-supported FDPs [7,9] . Other studies found tooth intrusions when the double-crown technique was used to cement FDPs with conventional provisional luting agents [1,9,19,22] .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…The retrievability provides the option of cleaning, periodontal/peri-implant treatment, and repair [1,2,5,8,12,15,20] . One way to ensure retrievability is the use of double crowns for the prepared teeth [1,5,12,15,20] . Permanent cemented copings on teeth protect from caries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The secondary crowns are temporarily (or semipermanently) cemented onto the copings. The implant crowns of the FDP are either screw retained [1,15] or also temporarily cemented [5,12,20] . However, some restorations luted with temporary zinc oxide cements lose retention [1,12,15,19,20] , and tooth intrusions have also been observed [1,15,19] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clinical [12] and laboratory [18] studies have shown that the retention force of acrylic-urethane cement seems to be low enough to allow detachability without damaging the restoration and high enough to ensure the longevity of FDPs with little spontaneous loosening and no tooth intrusions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Retrievable, tooth-implant-supported, complete-arch fixed restorations in the maxilla: a 6-year retrospective study

Mündt

Heinemann²,

Schwahn³

et al. 2012

Biomedizinische Technik/Biomedical Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the survival rate of implants, abutment teeth, and suprastructures along with the management of the complications for complete-arch, semipermanent cemented tooth-implant-supported restorations in 44 maxillae. Permanent cemented copings protect the prepared teeth from caries. The metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) were cemented onto copings and implant abutments using acryl-urethane cement. Data were assessed via patient records and a final clinical examination. Six years after cementation, no implant or restoration had failed. After the extraction of two teeth and placement of an additional implant, three restorations had to be subsequently changed (89% of restorations were unchanged after 6 years). The loss of retention without tooth intrusion occurred in two restorations. All 23 restoration removals for prosthetic aftercare were non-destructive. The results of this study indicate that complete-arch, semipermanently cemented FDP rigidly connecting the maxillary teeth and implants are a reliable treatment option.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Retrievable, tooth-implant-supported, complete-arch fixed restorations in the maxilla: a 6-year retrospective study

Mündt

Heinemann²,

Schwahn³

et al. 2012

Biomedizinische Technik/Biomedical Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is no definite superiority of either of these means of retention, and choosing between them is mostly dependent on clinician preference regarding the clinical situation . Cement‐retained prostheses present some advantages and disadvantages as compared to screw‐retained prostheses (Table ) . In general, according to a systematic review comparing these two types of restorations, the total rate of technical (including abutment‐loosening complications) and biological complications of cemented prostheses was greater .…”

Section: Advantages and Disadvantages Of Cement‐retained Implant‐suppmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cement Selection for Cement‐Retained Implant‐Supported Prostheses: A Literature Review

Nematollahi

Beyabanaki

Alikhasi

2015

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cement-retained implant-supported prostheses are widely used for restoring missing teeth; however, they show some complications in comparison to screw-retained restorations, such as difficulty in retrieving the restoration and biocompatibility of cement. Therefore, the practitioner should consider several important aspects when using this type of restoration. In this regard, one major concern is appropriate cement selection, with considerations including cement biologic compatibility, methods for limiting the excess cement, ease of removing the excess cement, radiographic view of the cement, and also the possibility of future retrieval of the prosthesis. The aim of this review article was to address most aspects related to this type of prosthesis in terms of cementation.

show abstract

Factors determining the retentiveness of luting agents used with metal- and ceramic-based implant components

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Retrospective evaluation of temporary cemented, tooth and implant supported fixed partial dentures

Cited by 35 publications

References 6 publications

Retrievable, tooth-implant-supported, complete-arch fixed restorations in the maxilla: a 6-year retrospective study

Retrievable, tooth-implant-supported, complete-arch fixed restorations in the maxilla: a 6-year retrospective study

Cement Selection for Cement‐Retained Implant‐Supported Prostheses: A Literature Review

Factors determining the retentiveness of luting agents used with metal- and ceramic-based implant components

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About