8 SCREW- VERSUS CEMENT-RETAINED IMPLANT RESTORATIONS • LEE
Screw- Versus Cement-Retained Implant
Restorations: Current Concepts
Angie Lee, DMD,* Kozue Okayasu, DDS,† and Hom-Lay Wang, DDS, MSD, PhD‡
I
n implant therapy, an interdiscipli-
nary approach is an essential as-
pect and has led to the importance
for each specialty to expand its scope
of knowledge to improve interaction
and offer excellent care to patients. As
an implantologist, understanding the
concepts that govern the selection be-
tween screw- and cement-retained res-
torations is very important. This helps
clinicians to achieve better implant
placement and facilitates the restora-
tion of the implant prosthesis while
promoting final esthetic outcomes. Ar-
ticles have been published regarding
the differences between screw- and
1–5
cement-retained restorations. It is
important to revisit the literature re-
garding techniques currently available
that may influence the decision to se-
lect the type of restoration. The advan-
tages and disadvantages between
screw- and cement-retained restora-
tions, as well as the rationale for the
selection will be discussed. This article
will reflect an attempt to characterize the
properties of each restoration in an ob-
jective way.
*Resident, Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine,
School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
†Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Periodontics and Oral
Medicine, School of Dentistry, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI.
‡Professor and Director of Graduate Periodontics, Department
of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, School of Dentistry,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Reprint requests and correspondence to: Hom-Lay
Wang, DDS, MSD, PhD, Professor and Director of
Graduate Periodontics, Department of Periodontics
and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of
Dentistry, 1011 North University Avenue, Ann Arbor,
MI 48109-1078, Phone: (734) 763-3383, Fax: (734)
936-0374, E-mail: homlay@umich.edu
ISSN 1056-6163/10/01901-008
Implant Dentistry
Volume 19 • Number 1
Copyright © 2010 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181bb9033
ET AL
The debate between screw- ver-
sus cement-retained implant pros-
theses has long been discussed but
the best type of implant prosthesis
remains controversial among prac-
titioners. An understanding of their
properties will help the clinician in
selecting the ideal prosthesis for
each clinical case while promoting
final esthetic outcomes. With the
evolving technology and knowledge,
an update of the current trends is
necessary. This article provides an
ESTHETICS
When the implant is placed in the
ideal position, predictable esthetics can
be realized with either a screw- or a
cement-retained prosthesis. In the situa-
tion, where the implant is placed in a
position that will cause the screw access
to emerge in the esthetic zone, a cement-
retained restoration is the preferred
method. The abutment of cement-
retained restorations can be prepared in
the same way as in natural teeth and the
crown can then be cemented.
Screw-retained restorations have
been criticized because of the screw ac-
cess channel that may be placed in an
esthetic area when the implant is in an
unfavorable position. To overcome
these problems, preangled/angled/cus-
tomed abutments have been used so that
the screw access opening is relocated to
the cingulum or occlusal surface.6 How-
ever, the screw must diverge at least 17
degrees from the long axis of the im-
plant to allow sufficient space for the
retention screw. Even in the posterior
area, the occlusal restoration may still
compromise the esthetics because of the
underlying dark metal oxide. It seems
overview of the different character-
istics of screw- and cement-retained
implant restorations, and how they
may influence the esthetics, retriev-
ability, retention, passivity, occlusion,
accessibility, cost, and provisional
restorations. Problems and complica-
tions frequently encountered are dis-
cussed and treatment solutions are
proposed. (Implant Dent 2010;19:8 –
15)
Key Words: screw, cement, implant,
restoration, prosthesis, crown
that the use of an opaquer in combina-
tion with resilient composite offered a
significant esthetic improvement of the
implant restoration.7
In general, with adequate treat-
ment planning and the use of surgi-
cal guides,8 the implants should be
placed in the ideal position,9 allow-
ing the restorative dentist with the
choice of either screw- or cement-
retained restorations.
RETRIEVABILITY
A major advantage proposed with
the use of screw-retained restorations
is that they allow the retrieval of the
restoration without damage to the res-
toration or fixture. Therefore, the
screws and restorations can be re-
torqued, fractured components can be
repaired, implant and soft tissue can
be evaluated, calculus can be re-
moved, and cleaning of the compo-
nents is possible. The retrievability
may be most valuable in extensive
cases, where the prosthesis needs to be
retrieved for maintenance purposes.
However, the importance of retrieving
an implant crown was questioned be-

cause the rate of complications re-
mains low in comparison with natural
teeth.1,3 As cementing a final crown on
a natural tooth is a very common pro-
cedure, there are questions raised as to
why one should treat an implant crown
in a more rigorous way.1 The impor-
tance of retrievability remains under
the discretion and beliefs of each
clinician.
The technique used to remove a
screw-retained prosthesis involves
removal of the occlusal restoration,
the intermediate cotton pellet, and
the coping screw. When the restora-
tion is removed, it can be screwed
back in subsequently. A new cotton
pellet is placed and the access hole is
then restored with materials such as
composites.
As for the cement-retained pros-
thesis, retrievability is not necessarily
impossible because implants abut-
ments do not typically have undercuts
and there is no chemical adhesion be-
tween the cement and the abutment.1
A temporary cement composed of zinc
oxide-eugenol or mixed with petro-
leum jelly is frequently used as a final
cement for implant crowns to allow
for future retrieval.10 In fact, an in
vitro study performed by Kim et al11
demonstrated that decreased stress to
the implant was obtained with provi-
sional cement-retained prostheses in
comparison with permanent cement-
and screw-retained protheses. Never-
theless, the ability to remove the
crown with a temporary cement is still
very unpredictable, with the crown ei-
ther strongly cemented or prematurely
loosened.12,13 Another technique used
to retrieve a cement-retained crown
was described using set screws.14 The
idea is to place a retrieval screw in an
area where the cement seal can be
broken without damaging the restora-
tion. Other reported techniques in-
volve the use of guides to reach the
screw underneath or the use of screws
to move the abutments and then re-
trieve the restoration.15–17 If the abut-
ment does indeed become loose, if the
restoration requires a repair and can-
not be uncemented, or if the crown
cannot be salvaged then fabrication of
a new crown is often suggested. As
a consequence, additional cost is
IMPLANT DENTISTRY / VOLUME 19, NUMBER 1 2010
charged to the patient. In addition, fab-
rication of a temporary restoration
may be necessary in the esthetic zone.
RETENTION
Multiple properties of the abut-
ment affect the retention of a cement-
retained implant prosthesis, such as its
degree of tapering, surface area and
height, and surface roughness.18 –20
Most manufacturers fabricate the im-
plant abutments with a taper of ap-
proximately 6 degrees based on the
concept that this is the ideal taper re-
ported in natural teeth.21 In terms of
the restoration height, the margins of
the implant-supported crown and abut-
ment are usually located 2 to 3 mm
subgingivally, which increases the
surface area in comparison with the
natural dentition. At least 5 mm of
abutment height is needed to ensure
the retention of a cement-retained res-
toration.22 As a consequence, when the
interarch space is limited (i.e., !4
mm), a screw-retained restoration may
be indicated. Another indication for a
screw-retained prosthesis is in a case
of malpositioned implants because a
cement-retained prosthesis would re-
quire excessive axial wall reduction.
Retention is also influenced by the
surface finish of the abutment. If addi-
tional retention is required, the abutment
can be roughened with diamond burs or
grit blasting, in a way similar to natural
teeth. Moreover, the type of cement is
also a factor that influences the retention
of the cement-retained restoration, as
discussed previously.18 The concept of
progressive cementation may also be a
consideration in which stronger cements
are progressively used until the desired
retention is obtained.23 Nonetheless, it is
important to keep in mind that retention
values for the same cement differ on
natural teeth compared with implants.24
PASSIVITY
Passivity is a desired feature of
restorations because reduced stresses
are applied on the bone and the im-
plant. A lack of passivity has been
correlated with biologic and prosthetic
complications. If a nonpassive pros-
thesis is forced into place, stresses are
applied to the suprastructure, bone,
9
and implant, which may lead to bone
loss, implant fracture, or even mobil-
ity. The development of a microflora
at the interface of the implant and
abutment is also possible, which
may result in chronic gingival in-
flammation.25 Moreover, a casting
with inadequate fit can cause devia-
tions in the vertical loading of the
implant and subsequently screw
loosening or fracture.23
With the screw-retained prosthe-
sis, a precise fit between the crown
and abutment with no space between
them is ideal. A soldering technique is
used to correct the passivity. In this
technique, the cast is first separated; a
new transfer impression is taken and
then sent to the laboratory. The impor-
tance of an accurate technique is rein-
forced when using a screw-retained
prosthesis to minimize deviations in
angulations.
In the cement-retained prosthesis,
each abutment is screwed to the im-
plants, and the cement space of ap-
proximately 40 !m permits passivity.
When the cement-retained prosthesis
is not passive, the problem can be cor-
rected by reshaping the abutment or
casting. This additional space, if mi-
nor, can be compensated by the ce-
ment, which acts as a shock absorber
and reduces stresses to the bone.1 This
results in reduced laboratory cost and
patient chairside time in contrast to the
repair technique of the screw-retained
prosthesis.
When comparing the passivity ob-
tained in screw- versus cement-retained
prosthesis, most studies reported no dif-
ference with either technique.11,26,27
However, one study found that cement-
retained restorations had more equitable
stress distribution and are therefore bio-
mechanically preferable to screw-
retained restorations.13
Nonetheless, it is interesting to
note that most prostheses do not show
a completely passive fit, and however
are still functional, suggesting a cer-
tain biologic tolerance for misfit.28 Be-
cause various factors are known to
cause distortion (e.g., impression ma-
terial and porcelain shrinkage, dental
stone, and investment material expan-
sion),23 it is a challenge to achieve a
perfectly passive structure.
10 SCREW- VERSUS CEMENT-RETAINED IMPLANT RESTORATIONS • LEE
OCCLUSION
Because there is no access hole on
the occlusal surface of a cement-
retained implant-supported prosthesis,
an axial load may be directed to the
implant, which is preferable to lateral
forces.4 Hence, occlusal function is
promoted with cement-retained im-
plant restorations.23
The screw-retained prosthesis re-
quires an occlusal restoration, such as
amalgam or composite, to cover the
screw access channel. However, the
durability of these restorations is inf-
erior to an intact full coverage
crown.29,30 Moreover, as the size of the
implant increases so is the screw
access hole, thus leading to a large
occlusal restoration, which may com-
promise the long-term durability.23 In
fact, the screw access hole occupies
about 50% of the occlusal table in
molars and 75% in premolars.23 These
screw access holes not only interfere
with centric occlusal contacts but also
affect protrusive and lateral excursive
movements.
SUCCESS RATES
The differences in implant sur-
vival rates between screw- or cement-
retained prostheses were evaluated in
a systematic review.31 No differences
were found between the two types of
prosthesis in terms of implant survival
or success rates. In regards to prosthe-
sis success rates ("72 months),
cement-retained prostheses demon-
strated a 93.2% success, compared
with 83.4% with screw-retained pros-
theses, although the results did not
reach a level of statistical significance
(P " 0.05).31
COMPLICATIONS
Porcelain Fracture
Because implants lack a periodon-
tal ligament, higher forces are exerted
on implant crowns. As a consequence,
porcelain fracture is a frequently ob-
served complication. Because some
porcelain may be left unsupported be-
cause of the screw access channel,
screw-retained prostheses are even
more susceptible to porcelain fracture.
In an attempt to minimize this prob-
lem, the use of a metal occlusal table
ET AL
is gaining popularity, especially in ar-
eas with heavy occlusal loads, limited
vertical clearance, and without es-
thetic concerns.
Peri-Implant Tissue Inflammation
Residual cement is a common
complication of cement-retained pros-
theses. The shape of the abutment and
crown margin must follow the soft
tissue margin to prevent cement mar-
gins that are too deep. Soft tissue in-
flammation and bone loss can occur
when residual cement is left.32 There-
fore, it is crucial to remove all residual
cement at the time of crown insertion.
Multiple techniques have been pro-
posed to ease cement removal, such as
placing petroleum jelly on the outer
surface of the crown, the use of cu-
rettes to carefully scale around the
crown, and the meticulous use of den-
tal floss.22
Clearly, this is not a problem with
screw-retained prosthesis because no
cement is used. In fact, peri-implant
soft tissue responses seemed to be
more favorable with screw-retained
restorations compared with cement-
retained restorations. 33 However,
some authors reported gingival in-
flammation because of the microgap
between the restoration and the abut-
ment interface. 25,34 An interesting
study performed by Piattelli et al
showed bacterial infiltration in the
screw-retained implant assembly be-
cause of the microgap compared
with no bacterial or fluid penetration
in the cement-retained implant as-
sembly. The group concluded the
superiority of cement-retained restora-
tions in terms of fluid and bacterial
permeability.35
Screw Fracture/Loosening
The main disadvantage observed
with screw-retained restorations is the
screw loosening that occurs during
function.36,37 The incidence of screw
loosening or fractures varies between
10% and 65% depending on the stud-
ies and the types of restorations.23,38 – 43
In general, it occurs most frequently
with single tooth implant restora-
tions,38 restorations in the molar area,
and long cantilevers.37 As this was the
main concern with the traditional hex-
agonal implant systems, the inci-
dence is greatly reduced with the
advent of newer implant systems
(e.g., internal connections with a
geometric lock, larger abutments,
and screws designs).3,44,45
To prevent screw loosening, vari-
ous techniques were reported, such as
the antirotational feature, direct me-
chanical interlock, changes in screw
design, and torque controlling mecha-
nisms with torque wrenches.5,37 A res-
toration that is both cemented and
screwed retained was also described
and known as the “Combination Im-
plant Crown.”5 The authors claim that
the system offers the advantages of
both worlds, such as esthetics, retriev-
ability, and antirotational features with
the octagon engagement.5
Detrimental forces including ex-
cursive, off-axis centric, interproxi-
mal, and cantilever contacts should be
thoroughly evaluated and eliminated
whenever possible. A more favorable
distribution of the forces is obtained
when the implant is placed parallel to
the occlusal forces. In addition, a non-
passive framework increases the like-
lihood of screw loosening.
Another observed complication is
the fatigue failure of the screw.
Because the screw holding the screw-
retained prosthesis has a narrow diam-
eter, the strength of the prosthesis is
compromised. Conversely, the com-
ponents of the cement-retained resto-
ration are mainly large and, therefore,
fatigue failure does not occur as often.
ACCESSIBILITY
It is more challenging to place a
screw-retained restoration in the pos-
terior area when compared with the
cement-retained restoration because of
the handling of screws and screwdriv-
ers. This problem may be readily
observed in cases where the mouth
opening is restricted. Cementing im-
plant restorations may mimic more
treatments of natural teeth and therefore
may be preferred by many dentists.
COST
The laboratory cost to fabricate a
screw-retained restoration is usually
1.5 to 2 times higher because of the
 IMPLANT DENTISTRY / VOLUME 19, NUMBER 1 2010 11

Table 1. Comparison Between Screw- and Cement-Retained Implant Restorations

Screw-Retained Cement-Retained
Esthetics Ideal implant position More universal
Retrievability Yes Possible but unpredictable
Retention Possible even if !4-mm abutment height "5-mm abutment height
Passivity Critical technique Cement space as a shock absorber
Occlusion Occlusal interferences possible Better control
Complications More susceptible to porcelain fracture More susceptible to peri-implant tissue
and screw fractures/loosening inflammation because of excess
cement
Accessibility More difficult Easier
Cost More expensive Less expensive
Provisional restorations Better tissue response and Easier to fabricate
communication with technician Excess cement

the machined surface of screw-

Table 2. Advantages and Disadvantages of Screw-Retained Restorations
retained restorations are better than ce-
Advantages Disadvantages ment margins,46 the selection in cases
Retrievable Ideal implant position required of immediate loading may favor
Use in limited interocclusal space Technique sensitive to gain passivity screw-retained provisionals.
Better tissue response with Occlusal interferences possible
provisional restorations Porcelain fracture and screw fractures/loosening
More difficult to access SUMMARY
More expensive Tables 1–3 list the comparison
between screw- and cemented-
retained implant restorations as well
Table 3. Advantages and Disadvantages of Cement-Retained Restorations as the advantages and disadvantages
Advantages Disadvantages of screw- and cemented-retained im-
Flexibility in implant position Unpredictable retrievability
plant restorations.
Passivity easily obtained Great interocclusal space required
Better control of occlusion Excess cement CONCLUSION
Easier to access
Less expensive Different philosophies exist re-
Easier technique with provisional restorations garding the ideal type of restoration.
The truth is that most of the decisions
are based on the clinician’s personal
extra time and materials needed (im- necessary before the impression to preference and the actual clinical situ-
pression transfers, analogs, and gain additional interocclusal space. ation. The literature shows advantages
screws).1 There is usually no extra cost Cement-retained provisionals are and disadvantages for both screw- and
to the cement-retained restoration be- relatively easy to fabricate compared cement-retained implant-supported
cause no additional training is required with screw-retained provisionals, be- prostheses (Tables 2 and 3). An under-
to the laboratory technician. cause they simulate techniques with standing of how each type of prosthe-
natural teeth, which can further moti- sis influences the esthetics, occlusion,
vate clinicians to make the temporary. and longevity of the restoration is im-
PROVISIONAL RESTORATIONS Nonetheless, the major disadvantage portant in selecting the best case for
Provisional restorations are im- includes the possibility of excess either a screw- or a cement-retained
portant in the esthetic area to replace cement that can cause tissue inflam- implant-supported prosthesis. It is
the missing tooth and to shape the soft mation.32 This is a major problem generally agreed that the current trend
tissue for a better crown profile. In the particularly in cases of immediate tends to favor cement-retained implant
posterior area, benefits from a provi- loading, where excess cement in the restorations for their superior esthet-
sional restoration include not only surgical site may compromise healing ics, occlusion, ease of fabrication, and
shaping of the soft tissue but also a and implant osseointegration. reduced chairside time.
better assessment of the outcome and Screw-retained provisionals offer
anticipation of possible problems with the advantage over cement-retained
the final crown. For instance, if an provisionals in that they can be ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
adequate thickness of material cannot screwed into the master impression to This article was partially supported by
be obtained with the provisional, re- translate additional information to the the University of Michigan Periodon-
shaping the opposing tooth may be technician regarding the contour.2 As tal Graduate Student Research Fund.
12 SCREW- VERSUS CEMENT-RETAINED IMPLANT RESTORATIONS • LEE
Disclosure
The authors claim to have no fi-
nancial interests, either directly or in-
directly, in the products or information
listed in the article.
REFERENCES
1. Misch CE. Screw-retained versus
cement-retained implant-supported pros-
theses. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent.
1995;7:15-18.
2. Chee W, Jivraj S. Screw versus ce-
mented implant supported restorations. Br
Dent J. 2006;201:501-507.
3. Chee W, Felton DA, Johnson PF, et
al. Cemented versus screw-retained im-
plant prostheses: Which is better? Int
J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999;14:137-
141.
4. Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis
PD. Cement-retained versus screw-
retained implant restorations: A critical re-
view. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;
18:719-728.
5. McGlumphy EA, Papazoglou E, Ri-
ley RL. The combination implant crown: A
cement- and screw-retained restoration.
Compendium. 1992;12:34, 36, 38 passim.
6. Balshi TJ, Ekfeldt A, Stenberg T, et
al. Three-year evaluation of Branemark
implants connected to angulated abut-
ments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants.
1997;12:52-58.
7. Weininger B, McGlumphy E, Beck
M. Esthetic evaluation of materials used to
fill access holes of screw-retained implant
crowns. J Oral Implantol. 2008;34:145-
149.
8. Shotwell JL, Billy EJ, Wang HL, et al.
Implant surgical guide fabrication for par-
tially edentulous patients. J Prosthet Dent.
2005;93:294-297.
9. Bashutski JD, Wang HL. Common
implant esthetic complications. Implant
Dent. 2007;16:340-348.
10. Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Bogacki
MT, et al. Use of luting agents with an im-
plant system: Part I. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;
68:737-741.
11. Kim WD, Jacobson Z, Nathanson
D. In vitro stress analyses of dental im-
plants supporting screw-retained and
cement-retained prostheses. Implant
Dent. 1999;8:141-151.
12. Chiche GJ, Pinault A. Consider-
ations for fabrication of implant-supported
posterior restorations. Int J Prosthodont.
1991;4:37-44.
13. Guichet DL, Caputo AA, Choi H, et
al. Passivity of fit and marginal opening in
screw- or cement-retained implant fixed
partial denture designs. Int J Oral Maxillo-
fac Implants. 2000;15:239-246.
14. Chee WW, Torbati A, Albouy JP.
ET AL
Retrievable cemented implant restora-
tions. J Prosthodont. 1998;7:120-125.
15. Doerr J. Simplified technique for re-
trieving cemented implant restorations.
J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88:352-353.
16. Okamoto M, Minagi S. Technique
for removing a cemented superstructure
from an implant abutment. J Prosthet
Dent. 2002;87:241-242.
17. Gittleman NB. Retrieving ce-
mented telescopic prostheses: Technical
note. Implant Dent. 1996;5:91-92.
18. Bernal G, Okamura M, Munoz CA.
The effects of abutment taper, length and
cement type on resistance to dislodge-
ment of cement-retained, implant-
supported restorations. J Prosthodont.
2003;12:111-115.
19. Covey DA, Kent DK, St Germain
HA Jr, et al. Effects of abutment size and
luting cement type on the uniaxial retention
force of implant-supported crowns.
J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83:344-348.
20. Emms M, Tredwin CJ, Setchell DJ,
et al. The effects of abutment wall height,
platform size, and screw access channel
filling method on resistance to dislodge-
ment of cement-retained, implant-
supported restorations. J Prosthodont.
2007;16:3-9.
21. Jorgensen KD. The relationship
between retention and convergence angle
in cemented veneer crowns. Acta Odontol
Scand. 1955;13:35-40.
22. Strong SM. What’s your choice:
Cement- or screw-retained implant resto-
rations? Gen Dent. 2008;56:15-18.
23. Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-
retained versus screw-retained implant
restorations: Achieving optimal occlusion
and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Pros-
thet Dent. 1997;77:28-35.
24. Sheets JL, Wilcox C, Wilwerding T.
Cement selection for cement-retained
crown technique with dental implants.
J Prosthodont. 2008;17:92-96.
25. Keller W, Bragger U, Mombelli A.
Peri-implant microflora of implants with
cemented and screw retained supra-
structures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998;
9:209-217.
26. Pietrabissa R, Gionso L, Quaglini
V, et al. An in vitro study on compensa-
tion of mismatch of screw versus
cement-retained implant supported fixed
prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res.
2000;11:448-457.
27. Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann
MG, et al. Cement fixation and screw
retention: Parameters of passive fit. An in
vitro study of three-unit implant-supported
fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants
Res. 2004;15:466-473.
28. Jemt T, Book K. Prosthesis misfit
and marginal bone loss in edentulous im-
plant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Im-
plants. 1996;11:620-625.
29. Ekfeldt A, Fransson B, Soderlund
B, et al. Wear resistance of some prosth-
odontic materials in vivo. Acta Odontol
Scand. 1993;51:99-107.
30. Ekfeldt A, Oilo G. Occlusal contact
wear of prosthodontic materials. An in vivo
study. Acta Odontol Scand. 1988;46:159-
169.
31. Weber HP, Sukotjo C. Does the
type of implant prosthesis affect outcomes
in the partially edentulous patient? Int
J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22
(suppl):140-172.
32. Agar JR, Cameron SM, Hugh-
banks JC, et al. Cement removal from res-
torations luted to titanium abutments with
simulated subgingival margins. J Prosthet
Dent. 1997;78:43-47.
33. Weber HP, Kim DM, Ng MW, et al.
Peri-implant soft-tissue health surrounding
cement- and screw-retained implant
restorations: A multi-center, 3-year pro-
spective study. Clin Oral Implants Res.
2006;17:375-379.
34. Lindhe J, Berglundh T. The inter-
face between the mucosa and the implant.
Periodontol 2000. 1998;17:47-54.
35. Piattelli A, Scarano A, Paolantonio
M, et al. Fluids and microbial penetration in
the internal part of cement-retained versus
screw-retained implant-abutment connec-
tions. J Periodontol. 2001;72:1146-1150.
36. Sones AD. Complications with os-
seointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent.
1989;62:581-585.
37. McGlumphy EA, Mendel DA, Hol-
loway JA. Implant screw mechanics. Dent
Clin North Am. 1998;42:71-89.
38. Jemt T, Laney WR, Harris D, et al.
Osseointegrated implants for single tooth
replacement: A 1-year report from a multi-
center prospective study. Int J Oral Maxil-
lofac Implants. 1991;6:29-36.
39. Jemt T, Pettersson P. A 3-year
follow-up study on single implant treat-
ment. J Dent. 1993;21:203-208.
40. Parein AM, Eckert SE, Wollan PC,
et al. Implant reconstruction in the poste-
rior mandible: A long-term retrospective
study. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78:34-42.
41. Ekfeldt A, Carlsson GE, Borjesson
G. Clinical evaluation of single-tooth resto-
rations supported by osseointegrated
implants: A retrospective study. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implants. 1994;9:179-183.
42. Johansson LA, Ekfeldt A. Implant-
supported fixed partial prostheses: A ret-
rospective study. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;
16:172-176.
43. Ekfeldt A, Eriksson A, Johansson
LA. Stability of the screw joints in patients
with implant-supported fixed prostheses in
edentulous jaws: A 1-year follow-up study.
Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17:177-180.
44. Henry PJ, Laney WR, Jemt T, et al.
Osseointegrated implants for single-tooth
replacement: A prospective 5-year
 IMPLANT DENTISTRY / VOLUME 19, NUMBER 1 2010
multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Im- ameter implants in partially edentulous
plants. 1996;11:450-455. cases: 3- to 7-year longitudinal data. Im-
45. Cho SC, Small PN, Elian N, et al. plant Dent. 2004;13:245-250.
Screw loosening for standard and wide di- 46. Keith SE, Miller BH, Woody RD, et
Abstract Translations
GERMAN / DEUTSCH
AUTOR(EN): J Angie Lee, DMD, Kozue Okayasu, DDS,
Hom-Lay Wang, DDS, MSD, PhD.
Mit Schrauben gehaltene Implantatwiederherstellungslösungen
gegenüber Zemtentgehaltenen Wiederherstellungen: Die aktu-
ellen Konzepte
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Die Diskussion um die Verwend-
ung von mit Schrauben gehaltenen gegenüber Zementgehalt-
enen Implantatprothesen dauert bereits seit langem an, aber
bislang konnte in Bezug auf die beste Art von Implantatpro-
these noch keine Einigung unter den behandelnden Ärzten
erzielt werden. Ein eingehendes Verständnis der Eigen-
schaften wird dem Arzt dabei behilflich sein, in jedem Fall
die ideale Prothese für den Patienten zu finden, die gleichze-
itig auch die abschließenden ästhetischen Ergebnisse unter-
stützt. Mit der Weiterentwicklung von Technologie und
Wissen ist auch eine Aktualisierung der aktuellen Behand-
lungstendenzen erforderlich. Der vorliegende Artikel bietet
eine Übersicht über die unterschiedlichen Eigenschaften von
mit Schrauben und mit Zement gehaltenen Implantatwied-
erherstellungslösungen. Außerdem wird beschrieben, wie
diese die Ästhetik, Ersetzbarkeit, Erhaltbarkeit, Passivität,
den Bissschluss, die Zugänglichkeit, die Kosten sowie die
vorübergehenden Wiederherstellungslösungen beeinflus-
sen können. Es werden häufig auftretende Probleme und
Komplikationen erörtert und Behandlungsmöglichkeiten
vorgeschlagen.
SCHLÜSSELWÖRTER: Schraube, Zement, Implantat,
Wiederherstellung, Prothese, Krone
SPANISH / ESPAÑOL
AUTOR(ES): Angie Lee, DMD, Kozue Okayasu, DDS,
Hom-Lay Wang, DDS, MSD, PhD.
Restauraciones de implantes retenidas con cemento versus
tornillos: Conceptos actualess
ABSTRACTO: El debate entre prótesis de implantes re-
tenidas con cemento versus tornillos se ha discutido du-
rante mucho tiempo pero sigue siendo controversial entre
los profesionales el mejor tipo de prótesis. Un entendi-
miento de sus propiedades ayudará al clínico a seleccionar
la prótesis ideal para cada caso clínico mientras que se
13
al. Marginal discrepancy of screw-retained
and cemented metal-ceramic crowns on
implants abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Implants. 1999;14:369-378.
promueve un resultado estético final. Ante la evolución de
la tecnología y el conocimiento, es necesario presentar una
actualización de las tendencias actuales. Este artículo of-
rece una reseña de las diferentes características de las
restauraciones con implantes retenidos con cemento y tor-
nillos y cómo podrían influenciar la estética, recuperabi-
lidad, retención, pasividad, oclusión, accesibilidad, costo y
restauraciones transitorias. Se explican y se proponen solu-
ciones para el tratamiento de los problemas y complica-
ciones que se encuentran con frecuencia.
PALABRAS CLAVES: tornillo, cemento, implante, restau-
ración, prótesis, corona
PORTUGUESE / PORTUGUÊS
AUTOR(ES): Angie Lee, Doutora em Medicina Dentária,
Kozue Okayasu, Cirurgião-Dentista, Hom-Lay Wang,
Cirurgião-Dentista, Mestre em Odontologia, PhD.
Restaurações de Implante Retido por Parafuso Versus Ci-
mento: Conceitos Atuais
RESUMO: O debate entre próteses de implante retidas por
parafuso versus cimento tem sido discutido há muito tempo,
mas o melhor tipo de prótese de implante permanece contro-
verso entre os profissionais. Uma compreensão de suas pro-
priedades ajudará o clínico a selecionar a prótese ideal para
cada caso clínico enquanto promove resultados estéticos fi-
nais. Com a evolução da tecnologia e do conhecimento, é
necessária uma atualização das tendências atuais. Este artigo
proporciona uma visão geral das diferentes características de
restaurações de implante retido por parafuso e cimento e
como elas podem influenciar a estética, a capacidade de
recuperação, a retenção, a passividade, a oclusão, a acessibi-
lidade, o custo e as restaurações provisórias. São discutidos
problemas e complicações frequentemente encontrados e são
propostas soluções de tratamento.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: parafuso, cimento, implante, restaura-
ção, prótese, coroa
RUSSIAN /
!"#О%&: Angie Lee, док$о% с$о'($олог++, Kozue
Okayasu, док$о% ,+%у%г+./ско0 с$о'($олог++, Hom-
14 SCREW- VERSUS CEMENT-RETAINED IMPLANT RESTORATIONS • LEE
Lay Wang, док$о% ,+%у%г+./ско0 с$о'($олог++, '(г-
+с$% с$о'($олог++, док$о% ф+лософ++.
"'()о+,- ' ./0/()(,- ф'кс,.'- 45о)/6,:
со+5/0/((7/ +6гл-д7
%;<=>;. С3о% о $о', к(ко0 '/$од ф+кс(4++
3%о$/5о6 7( +'3л(7$($/ 86л8/$с8 7(+бол//
о3$+'(л:7;' – 6+7$о6о0 +л+ 4/'/7$7;0,
3%одол<(/$с8 у</ 6 $/./7+/ дл+$/л:7ого 6%/'/7+,
7о с%/д+ 3%(к$+ку=>+, 6%(./0 до с+, 3о% 7/$ /д+-
7ого '7/7+8. ?7(7+/ с6о0с$6 @$+, '/$одо6 3о'о</$
6%(.(' 3одб+%($: +д/(л:7;0 $+3 3%о$/5( дл8 к(<-
дого кл+7+./ского слу.(8, од7о6%/'/77о с @$+' 3о5-
6ол88 3олу.+$: @с$/$+.7;0 око7.($/л:7;0
%/5ул:$($. С %(сA+%/7+/' 57(7+0 + %(56+$+/'
$/,7олог++ 7/об,од+'о со6/%A/7с$6о6($: $/ку>+/
$/7д/74++. B с$($:/ 3%+6од+$с8 об5о% %(5л+.7;,
,(%(к$/%+с$+к 6+7$о6о0 + 4/'/7$7о0 ф+кс(4++
3%о$/5( + +, 6о5'о<7о/ 6л+87+/ 7( @с$/$+ку,
л/гкос$: +56л/./7+8 3%о$/5(, 7(д/<7ос$: ф+кс(4++,
+7/%$7ос$:, оккл=5+=, дос$у37ос$:, с$о+'ос$: +
6%/'/77;/ 3%о$/5;. Обсу<д(=$с8 .(с$о 6о57+к(-
=>+/ 3%обл/'; + осло<7/7+8, 3%/дл(г(=$с8 6(%+-
(7$; л/./7+8.
КЛ=A;"&; СЛО"!: 6+7$, 4/'/7$, +'3л(7$($,
3%о$/5+%о6(7+/, 3%о$/5, ко%о7к(
JAPANESE /
ET AL
TURKISH / TÜRKÇE
YAZARLAR: Angie Lee, DMD, Kozue Okayasu, DDS,
Hom-Lay Wang, DDS, MSD, PhD.
Vida ya da Sement ile Tutturulan İmplant Restorasyonları:
Günümüzün Kavramları
ÖZET: Vida ya da sement ile tutturulan implant protezleri
uzun zamandır tartışılmakla beraber pratisyenler arasında en
iyi implant protezi türü hakkında halen bir görüş birliği
bulunmamaktadır. Bunların özelliklerinin anlaşılması, klini-
syenin bir yandan nihai estetik sonucu göz önünde bulundu-
rurken, bir yandan da her klinik olgu için en ideal protezi
seçmesine yardımcı olabilir. Bu konudaki teknoloji ve bilgi
düzeyindeki gelişmeler nedeniyle mevcut trendlerin güncel-
lenmesi gerekir. Bu yazı, vida ve sement ile tutturulan im-
plant restorasyonlarının özelliklerine bir bakış sunmak ve bu
yöntemlerin estetiği, restorasyonun çıkarılabilmesini, mu-
hafaza edilmesini, pasifliği, oklüzyonu, erişebilme olanağını,
masrafını ve provizyonel restorasyonları nasıl etkilediğini
incelemek amacıyla hazırlandı. Sık bir şekilde karşılaşılan
problemlerle komplikasyonlar bu çalışmada tartışılmakta ve
tedavi çözümleri sunulmaktadır.
ANAHTAR KELÝMELER: vida, sement, implant, restora-
syon, protez, kron
 IMPLANT DENTISTRY / VOLUME 19, NUMBER 1 2010 15

CHINESE /

KOREAN /