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.
Implants Aesthetic zone Screw retained restorations Zirconia Titanium
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Rajan M, Gunaseelan R. Fabrication of a cement- and screw-retained implant prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92:578–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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