These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
749 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26589441)
1. Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lemos CA; de Souza Batista VE; Almeida DA; Santiago Júnior JF; Verri FR; Pellizzer EP J Prosthet Dent; 2016 Apr; 115(4):419-27. PubMed ID: 26589441 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Should the restoration of adjacent implants be splinted or nonsplinted? A systematic review and meta-analysis. de Souza Batista VE; Verri FR; Lemos CAA; Cruz RS; Oliveira HFF; Gomes JML; Pellizzer EP J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Jan; 121(1):41-51. PubMed ID: 29961632 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Peri-implant bone loss in cement- and screw-retained prostheses: systematic review and meta-analysis. de Brandão ML; Vettore MV; Vidigal Júnior GM J Clin Periodontol; 2013 Mar; 40(3):287-95. PubMed ID: 23297703 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Influence of prosthesis type and retention mechanism on complications with fixed implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review applying multivariate analyses. Millen C; Brägger U; Wittneben JG Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2015; 30(1):110-24. PubMed ID: 25615920 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Prosthetic outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed dental restorations: a systematic review. Chaar MS; Att W; Strub JR J Oral Rehabil; 2011 Sep; 38(9):697-711. PubMed ID: 21395638 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions--a systematic review. Wittneben JG; Millen C; Brägger U Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2014; 29 Suppl():84-98. PubMed ID: 24660192 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. In vitro evaluation of reverse torque value of abutment screw and marginal opening in a screw- and cement-retained implant fixed partial denture design. Kim SG; Park JU; Jeong JH; Bae C; Bae TS; Chee W Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2009; 24(6):1061-7. PubMed ID: 20162110 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Screw- versus cement-retained implant prostheses: a systematic review of prosthodontic maintenance and complications. Ma S; Fenton A Int J Prosthodont; 2015; 28(2):127-45. PubMed ID: 25822297 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations. Nissan J; Narobai D; Gross O; Ghelfan O; Chaushu G Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2011; 26(5):1102-7. PubMed ID: 22010095 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Complications of screw- and cement-retained implant-supported full-arch restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gaddale R; Mishra SK; Chowdhary R Int J Oral Implantol (Berl); 2020; 13(1):11-40. PubMed ID: 32186285 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Techniques for locating the screw access hole in cement-retained implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review. Martín Ortega N; Baños MÁ; Martínez J; Revilla-León M; Gómez-Polo M J Prosthet Dent; 2023 Jul; 130(1):48-58. PubMed ID: 34809995 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Ceramic versus metal-ceramic implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lemos CAA; Verri FR; Gomes JML; de Souza Batista VE; Cruz RS; Oliveira HFFE; Pellizzer EP J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Jun; 121(6):879-886.e4. PubMed ID: 30661882 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A comparison of marginal bone loss, survival rate, and prosthetic complications in implant-supported splinted and nonsplinted restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Shah AH; Patel P; Trivedi A; Shah A; Desai N; Talati M J Indian Prosthodont Soc; 2022; 22(2):111-121. PubMed ID: 36511022 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Immediate occlusal loading of full-arch rehabilitations: screw-retained versus cement-retained prosthesis. An 8-year clinical evaluation. Crespi R; Capparè P; Gastaldi G; Gherlone EF Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2014; 29(6):1406-11. PubMed ID: 25397803 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Effects of modifying implant screw access channels on the amount of extruded excess cement and retention of cement-retained implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review. Davoudi A; Rismanchian M J Prosthet Dent; 2019 Jan; 121(1):52-58. PubMed ID: 30006223 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of external and internal implant-abutment connections for implant supported prostheses. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lemos CAA; Verri FR; Bonfante EA; Santiago Júnior JF; Pellizzer EP J Dent; 2018 Mar; 70():14-22. PubMed ID: 29221955 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. A comparison between screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. A literature review. Shadid R; Sadaqa N J Oral Implantol; 2012 Jun; 38(3):298-307. PubMed ID: 21091343 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Clinical observation of screw and cement-retained implant-supported restoration of fixed bridges]. Song T; Xu PC; Li Y Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2011 Jun; 20(3):296-9. PubMed ID: 21779741 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. An auxiliary device for screw-retained fixed implant restorations which prevents extrusion of cement into screw-access openings. Yang Z; Liu M; Liu X; Tan J J Prosthet Dent; 2021 Aug; 126(2):178-180. PubMed ID: 32828529 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related] [Next] [New Search]