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: [Clinical observation of screw and cement-retained implant-supported restoration of fixed bridges].
    Author: Song T, Xu PC, Li Y.
    Journal: Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue; 2011 Jun; 20(3):296-9. PubMed ID: 21779741.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare the prosthetic outcome of screw- and cement-retained implant-supported restorations of the fixed bridges. METHODS: A total of 185 Straumann implants were placed in the alveolar bone of 68 partially edentulous patients from Jan. 2006 to Dec. 2007. All of them were 2 to 6 units of combination crowns with Straumann system. Then they were followed up for 3 years. In each group, the retention, influence on hard and soft tissues, passive fitting and rupture strength of the ceramic layer were evaluated. The data was analyzed with SPSS12.0 software package. RESULTS: There were more advantages of retention and the rupture strength of the ceramic layer in the cement-retained group, while there was less influence on the hard and soft tissues, and more facility of maintenance and reparation in the screwed-retained group. The difference between the two groups was statistically not significant (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical outcomes of implant restorations are satisfactory, either screw-retained or cement-retained. Cement retention is used in 2 to 3 unit combination crowns, while screw retention is more suitable for complicated cases.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]