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 systematic review of screw- versus cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations.
    Author: Sherif S, Susarla HK, Kapos T, Munoz D, Chang BM, Wright RF.
    Journal: J Prosthodont; 2014 Jan; 23(1):1-9. PubMed ID: 24382004.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To systematically evaluate the survival and success of screw- versus cement-retained implant crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors performed an electronic search of nine databases using identical MeSH phrases. Systematic evaluation and data extraction of the articles from 1966 through 2007 were completed by three reviewers and two clinical academicians. The major outcome variable was implant or crown loss, and the minor outcome variables were screw loosening, decementation, and porcelain fracture. Random effects Poisson models were used to analyze the failure and complication rates. RESULTS: The initial search produced 26,582 articles. Of these, 577 titles and subsequently 295 abstracts were available for evaluation, with 81 full texts meeting the criteria for review. Data were extracted from 23 level one and two research studies. Fleiss' kappa interevaluator agreement ranged from almost perfect to moderate. Major failures included 0.71 screw-retained and 0.87 cement-retained failures per 100 years. Minor failures included 3.66 screw loosenings, 2.54 decementations, and 0.46 porcelain fractures per 100 years. CONCLUSION: There is no significant difference between cement- and screw-retained restorations for major and minor outcomes with regard to implant survival or crown loss. This is important data, as clinicians use both methods of restoration, and neither is a form of inferior care.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]