2005
DOI: 10.1563/1548-1336(2005)31[242:svcrae]2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Screw- vs Cement-implant–retained Restorations: An Experimental Study in the Beagle. Part 1. Screw and Abutment Loosening

Abstract: The causes of implant failures can be biological or mechanical. The mechanical causes include fracture of the implant, fracture of the abutment, and loosening of the abutment. Numerous studies show that abutment loosening constitutes one of the marked implant postsurgery complications requiring clinical intervention. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the incidence of the screw loosening in screwed or cemented abutments. Six adult male Beagles were used. In each dog, the first molars and 2 premolars … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
38
0
8

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
38
0
8
Order By: Relevance
“…A clinical‐experimental study of particular interest was performed with dogs, where similar cement‐retained or screw‐retained FDPs were placed bilaterally in the same arch (split‐mouth). After 12 months of clinical function, a loosening of the screw was observed in 27% of screw‐retained restorations and 0% in the cement‐retained . In the same study, it was stated that the proper treatment of the problem is the replacement of the screw.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A clinical‐experimental study of particular interest was performed with dogs, where similar cement‐retained or screw‐retained FDPs were placed bilaterally in the same arch (split‐mouth). After 12 months of clinical function, a loosening of the screw was observed in 27% of screw‐retained restorations and 0% in the cement‐retained . In the same study, it was stated that the proper treatment of the problem is the replacement of the screw.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…The results reported in different studies are contradictory. Some report higher incidence of screw loosening in screw‐retained and others in cement‐retained restorations …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These complications mainly include peri‐mucositis, peri‐implantitis, loosening or fracturing of the abutment screw, fracturing of the abutment or superstructure, crown loosening, or porcelain cracking . Among these, the loosening of the abutment screw is one of the most common mechanical complications . The incidence rate of abutment screw loosening reaches 5.3% in the first year after loading, and 5.8%‐12.7% after the 5‐year follow‐up .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[4][5] Although no consensus has been reached regarding the superiority of any method of retention, cement retention is more popular because of lower complication rates and higher fracture resistance of veneering ceramics. [6][7][8][9][10][11] It also offers the advantages of passive fit, improved esthetics, favorable occlusal surface by…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%