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.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A comparison between screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. A literature review.
    Author: Shadid R, Sadaqa N.
    Journal: J Oral Implantol; 2012 Jun; 38(3):298-307. PubMed ID: 21091343.
    Abstract:
    Implant-supported restorations can be secured to implants with screws (screw-retained), or they can be cemented to abutments which are attached to implants with screws (cement-retained). This literature review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each method of retention from different aspects. These aspects include: ease of fabrication and cost, esthetics, access, occlusion, retention, incidence of loss of retention, retrievability, clinical prosthesis fit, restriction of implant position, effect on peri-implant tissue health, provisionalization, immediate loading, impression procedures, porcelain fracture, and clinical performance. Peer-reviewed literature published in the English language between 1955 and 2010 was reviewed using PubMed and hand searches. Since the choice of using either method of retention is still controversial, this review article offers some clinical situations that prefer one method of retention over the other. The review demonstrated that each method of retention has certain advantages and disadvantages; however, there are some clinical situations in which it is better to select one method of retention rather than the other.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]