Advertisement

Screw-Retained Implant Restorations in the Aesthetic Zone

  • Tomas Linkevicius
  • Algirdas Puisys
Chapter

Abstract

One of the choices to rehabilitate dental implant in aesthetic zone can be cement-screw-retained restoration, usually referred as hybrid prosthesis. It combines some features from cemented and screwed way of restoring implants. The system consists of the crown with palatinal opening, which is cemented to special retentive metal base on the working model. The cement excess is cleaned and restoration is screwed to the implant in the mouth. Retrievability is also a very important factor for success in implant restorations.

In addition this approach is good for peri-implant tissues, as it combines titanium as material for retentive base, which is good for connective tissue part of peri-implant tissues. Highly polished zirconia is appropriate material for epithelial adhesion of more coronal peri-implant tissues.

Keywords

Implants Aesthetic zone Screw retained restorations Zirconia Titanium 

References

  1. 1.
    Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;77:28–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sailer I, Muhlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hammerle CHF, Schneider D. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):163–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Peciuliene V. The influence of margin location on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011;22:1379–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wasiluk G, Chomik E, Gerhrke P, Pietruska M, Skurska A, Pietruski J. Incidence of undetected cement on CAD/CAM monolithic zirconia crowns and customized CAD/CAM implant abutments. A prospective case series. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;28(7):1–5.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18:719–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wittneben JG, Millen C, Brägger U. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions-a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:84–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wadhwani CH, Piñeyro A, Avots J. An esthetic solution to the screw-retained implant restoration: introduction to the implant crown adhesive plug: clinical report. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2011;23:138–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kano SC, Bonfante G, Binon PP, et al. Effect of casting procedures on screw loosening in UCLA-type abutments. J Prosthodont. 2006;15:1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Park SE, Da Silva JD, Weber HP, Ishikawa-Nagai S. Optical phenomenon of peri-implant soft tissue. Part I. Spectrophotometric assessment of natural tooth gingiva and peri-implant mucosa. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18:569–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jung RE, Holderegger C, Sailer I, Khraisat A, Suter A, Hammerle CH. The effect of all-ceramic and porcelain-fused-to-metal restorations on marginal peri-implant soft tissue color: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008;28:357–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carrillo de AA, Vignoletti F, Ferrantino L, Cardenas E, De SM, Sanz M. A randomized trial on the aesthetic outcomes of implant-supported restorations with zirconia or titanium abutments. J Clin Periodontol. 2014;41:1161–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Passos SP, Linke B, Larjava H, French D. Performance of zirconia abutments for implant-supported single-tooth crowns in esthetic areas: a retrospective study up to 12-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;27(1):47–54.  https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rajan M, Gunaseelan R. Fabrication of a cement- and screw-retained implant prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92:578–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zembic A, Bosch A, Jung RE, Hammerle CH, Sailer I. Five-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing zirconia and titanium abutments supporting single-implant crowns in canine and posterior regions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:384–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glauser R, Sailer I, Wohlwend A, Studer S, Schibli M, Scharer P. Experimental zirconia abutments for implant-supported single-tooth restorations in esthetically demanding regions: 4-year results of a prospective clinical study. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17:285–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zembic A, Philipp AO, Hammerle CH, Wohlwend A, Sailer I. Eleven-year follow-up of a prospective study of zirconia implant abutments supporting single all-ceramic crowns in anterior and premolar regions. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;17(Suppl 2):e417–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Glantz PO, Lindhe J. The mucosal attachment at different abutments. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol. 1998;25:721–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tomas Linkevicius
    • 1
  • Algirdas Puisys
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineInstitute of Odontology, Vilnius UniversityVilniusLithuania
  2. 2.Vilnius Implantology CenterVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations