The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 297–300 | Cite as

Replacement of Missing Anterior Tooth Using Screw Retained Implant Prosthesis in the Esthetic Zone: A Case Report with 3 Years of Follow Up

  • Manawar Ahmad
  • B. Dhanasekar
  • I. N. Aparna
  • Hina Naim
Clinical Report
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:
  • 156 Downloads

Abstract

As more and more dental practitioners are focusing on implant-supported fixed restorations, some clinicians favor the use of cement retained restorations while others consider screw-retained prosthesis to be the best choice. As both types of prostheses have certain advantages and disadvantages, clinicians should be aware of the limitations of each type. Screw-retained implant restorations have an advantage of predictable retention, retrievability and lack of potentially retained sub-gingival cement. However, a few disadvantages exist such as precise placement of the implant for optimal and esthetic location of the screw access hole and obtaining passive fit. On the other hand, cement retained restorations eliminates unaesthetic screw access holes; have passive fit of castings; reduce stress to splinted implants because of minor misfit of the framework; reduced complexity of lab procedures; enhanced esthetics; reduced cost factors and non disrupted morphology of the occlusal table. This case report presents the replacement of missing left central incisor using screw-retained implant prosthesis due to palatal trajectory of the implant placement and inadequate abutment height for retention of cement retained prosthesis.

Keywords

Dental implants Implant prosthesis Screw retained implant prosthesis Cement retained implant prosthesis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD (2003) Cement-retained versus screw retained implant restorations: a clinical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 18:719–728PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hebel KS, Gajjar RC (1997) Cement retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 77:28–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Uludag B, Celik G (2006) Fabrication of cement and screw retained multiunit implant restoration. J Oral Implantol XXXII(Five):248–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rajan M, Gunaseelan R (2004) Fabrication of a cement and screw-retained implant prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 92:578–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Valbao FP Jr, Perez EG, Breda M (2001) Alternative method for retention and removal of cement-retained implant prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 86:181–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doerr J (2002) Simplified technique for retrieving implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent 88:352–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Okamoto M, Minagi S (2002) Technique for removing a cemented superstructure from an implant abutment. J Prosthet Dent 87:241–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pauletto N, Lahiffe BJ, Walton JN (1999) Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14:865–868PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weber HP, Kim DM, Ng MW et al (2006) Peri-implant soft-tissue health surrounding cement- and screw-retained implant restorations: a multi-center, 3 year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 17:375–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Michalakis K, Pissiotis A, Hirayama H (2000) Cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used in cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:545–549PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Squier R, Agar J, Duncan J, Taylor T (2001) Retentiveness of dental cements used with metallic implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 16:793–798PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jorgensen KD (1955) The relationship between retention and convergence angle in cemented veneer crowns. Acta Odontol Scand 13:35–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kaufman EG, Coelho DH, Collin L (1961) Factors influencing the retention of cemented gold castings. J Prosthet Dent 11:487–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chee W, Felton DA, Johnson PF, Sullivan DY (1999) Cemented versus screw retained prosthesis: Which is better? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14:137–141PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guichet DL, Caputo AA, Choi H, Sorensen JA (1994) Load transfer in screw- and cement-retained implant fixed partial denture design. J Prosthet Dent 72:631Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nissan J, Gross M, Shifman A, Assif D (2001) Stress levels for well-fitting implant superstructures as a function of tightening force levels, tightening sequence, and different operators. J Prosthet Dent 86:20–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Prosthodontic Society 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manawar Ahmad
    • 1
  • B. Dhanasekar
    • 1
  • I. N. Aparna
    • 1
  • Hina Naim
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ProsthodonticsManipal College of Dental SciencesManipalIndia
  2. 2.Melaka Manipal Dental College, Manipal CampusManipalIndia

Personalised recommendations