Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.53(4) > 1034838

TOOLS
Chung, Son, and Kim: Clinical evaluation of retained preload and cement washout in screw- and cement-retained implant prosthesis
Original Article

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2015;53(4):301-309.

Published online: 9 February 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2015.53.4.301

Clinical evaluation of retained preload and cement washout in screw- and cement-retained implant prosthesis

Chae-Heon Chung1, Mee-Kyoung Son1, Seok-Gyu Kim2, ∗

1Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Chosun University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea

2Department of Prosthodontics, Samsung Medical Center, College of Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

∗Corresponding Author: Seok-Gyu Kim Department of Prosthodontics, Samsung Medical Center, College of Medicine, Sungkyunkwan University, 20, Itaewon-ro 55ga-gil, Yongsan-gu, Seoul 04348, Republic of Korea +82 2 792 6114:e-mail, seokgyu_k@hanmail.net

Received 16 June 201511 August 2015       Accepted 12 August 2015

Copyright © 2015 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of screw- and cement-retained implant prosthesis (SCP) design in terms of retained preload of abutment screws and cement washout.

Materials and methods

Patients with the partial posterior edentulous areas comprised the study group. Implants were placed, and SCPs were delivered after 3 to 6 months healing. Follow-up examinations were performed. The implant survival rate and the prosthetic success rate were evaluated. The retained preload ratio of abutment screws and the prosthetic decementation ratio were measured.

Results

Twenty one SCPs (forty three implants)in twenty patients were followed up to 64 months. All of the implants survived during the follow-up period (mean follow-up: 34 months). The prosthetic success rate was 100 % considering no abutment, screw, porcelain or metal frame fractures, as well as no screw loosening. The retained preload ratio of SCPs at the end of follow-up period was 97.61% (±16.29) and the decementation ratio was 9.5 %.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this clinical study, SCP design showed favorable short-term clinical performances in respect of screw loosening and cement washout.

Keywords: Dental prosthesis design, Dental cements, Implant-supported dental prosthesis

REFERENCES

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.
crossref
2. Voitik AJ. The Kulzer abutment luting; Kal technique. A direct assembly framework method for osseointegrated implant prostheses. Implant Soc. 1991; 2:11–4.
3. Karl M, Winter W, Taylor TD, Heckmann SM. In vitro study on passive fit in implant-supported 5-unit fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19:30–7.
4. Watanabe F1, Uno I, Hata Y, Neuendorff G, Kirsch A. Analysis of stress distribution in a screw-retained implant prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15:209–18.
5. Guichet DL, Caputo AA, Choi H, Sorensen JA. Passivity of fit and marginal opening in screw- or cement-retained implant fixed partial denture designs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15:239–46.
6. Keith SE, Miller BH, Woody RD, Higginbottom FL. Marginal discrepancy of screw-retained and cemented metal-ceramic crowns on implants abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14:369–78.
7. Wood MR, Vermilyea SG. Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. A review of selected dental literature on evidence-based treatment plan-ning for dental implants: report of the Committee on Research in Fixed Prosthodontics of the Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 92:447–62.
crossref
8. Chee W, Felton DA, Johnson PF, Sullivan DY. Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: which is better? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14:137–41.
9. Taylor TD, Agar JR, Vogiatzi T. Implant prosthodontics: current perspective and future directions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15:66–75.
10. Preiskel HW, Tsolka P. Telescopic prostheses for implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998; 13:352–7.
11. Lindströ m H, Preiskel H. The implant-supported telescopic prosthesis: a biomechanical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001; 16:34–42.
12. Preiskel HW, Tsolka P. Cement- and screw-retained implant-supported prostheses: up to 10 years of follow-up of a new design. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19:87–91.
13. Kim SG, Park JU, Jeong JH, Bae C, Bae TS, Chee W. In vitro evaluation of reverse torque value of abutment screw and marginal opening in a screw- and cement-retained implant fixed partial denture design. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24:1061–7.
14. Kim SG, Chung CH, Son MK. Effect of cement washout on loosening of abutment screws and vice versa in screw- and cement- retained implant-supported dental prosthesis. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015; 7:207–13.
15. Dixon DL, Breeding LC, Sadler JP, McKay ML. Comparison of screw loosening, rotation, and deflection among three implant designs. J Prosthet Dent. 1995; 74:270–8.
crossref
16. Sailer I, Zembic A, Jung RE, Siegenthaler D, Holderegger C, Hä mmerle CH. Randomized controlled clinical trial of customized zirconia and titanium implant abutments for canine and posterior single-tooth implant reconstructions: preliminary results at 1 year of function. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20:219–25.
crossref
17. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, Steigmann M, Rebaudi A, Palti A, Pikos MA, Schwartz-Arad D, Choukroun J, Gutierrez-Perez JL, Marenzi G, Valavanis DK. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent. 2008; 17:5–15.
crossref
18. Park JK, Choi JU, Jeon YC, Choi KS, Jeong CM. Effects of abutment screw coating on implant preload. J Prosthodont. 2010; 19:458–64.
crossref
19. Butignon LE, Basilio Mde A, Pereira Rde P, Arioli Filho JN. Influence of three types of abutments on preload values before and after cyclic loading with structural analysis by scanning electron microscopy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28:e161–70.
crossref
20. Khraisat A, Hashimoto A, Nomura S, Miyakawa O. Effect of lateral cyclic loading on abutment screw loosening of an external hexagon implant system. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 91:326–34.
crossref
21. Chaar MS, Att W, Strub JR. Prosthetic outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed dental restorations: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2011; 38:697–711.
crossref
22. De Boever AL, Keersmaekers K, Vanmaele G, Kerschbaum T, Theuniers G, De Boever JA. Prosthetic complications in fixed endosseous implant-borne reconstructions after an observations period of at least 40 months. J Oral Rehabil. 2006; 33:833–9.
23. Hooshmand T, Mohajerfar M, Keshvad A, Motahhary P. Microleakage and marginal gap of adhesive cements for noble alloy full cast crowns. Oper Dent. 2011; 36:258–65.
crossref
24. Piwowarczyk A, Lauer HC, Sorensen JA. Microleakage of various cementing agents for full cast crowns. Dent Mater. 2005; 21:445–53.
crossref
25. McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J. 1971; 131:107–11.
crossref
26. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90:121–32.
crossref
27. Nissan J, Narobai D, Gross O, Ghelfan O, Chaushu G. Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26:1102–7.
28. Wittneben JG, Millen C, Brä gger U. Clinical performance of screw-versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions-a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29:84–98.
29. Tsuge T, Hagiwara Y. Influence of lateral-oblique cyclic loading on abutment screw loosening of internal and external hexagon implants. Dent Mater J. 2009; 28:373–81.
crossref

Fig. 1.
Mini Digital Torque Wrench; (A) four customized screwdrivers (hex size/length; 1.25 mm/19 mm, 1.25 mm/13 mm, 1.2 mm/19 mm, 1.2 mm/13 mm), (B) modified connector of torque wrench.
jkap-53-301f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Periapical radiographic view of 2-unit SCP on #36-37 area (#36-screw type unit, #37-cement type unit); (A) initial view, (B) postoperative view (38 months after delivery).
jkap-53-301f2.tif
Table 1.
Distribution of placed implants (n=43) according to the position in the jaws
Tooth number (maxilla) 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
No. of implants (maxilla) 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 3
No. of implants (mandible) 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 10 10
Tooth number (mandible) 47 46 45 44 43 42 41 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Table 2.
Time in service (year) of implants
Time in service (y) 0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6
No. of implants 0 13 6 18 4 2
Table 3.
Mean retained preload(%) before and after loading
Group N Tightening torque Mean retained preload (before loading) Mean retained preload (after loading)
3i 7 20 103.79 ± 07.54 101.29 ± 07.4
Astra (3.5/4.0) 5 20 99.10 ± 03.68 108.50 ± 14.94
Astra (4.5/5.0) 6 25 79.20 ± 08.74 88.40 ± 20.87
Osstem 3 30 79.43 ± 15.27 89.33 ± 15.88
Total 21 91.88 ± 14.3 97.61 ± 16.29
TOOLS
Similar articles