| Anitua & Alkhraisat [66 Anitua E, Alkhraisat M. Clinical Performance of Short Dental Implants Supporting Single Crown Restoration in the Molar-Premolar Region: Cement Versus Screw Retention. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(4):969-976.] |
Retrospective clinical study |
Observing marginal bone loss |
Short implants in the premolar region |
The distal marginal bone loss was less in the screwed crowns than in the cemented ones. Marginal bone loss = 2 mm was more frequent in cemented crowns. |
Penarrocha-Oltra
et al. [88 Penarrocha-Oltra D, Monreal-Bello A, Penarrocha-Diago M, Alonso-Perez-Barquero J, Botticelli D, Canullo L. Microbial Colonization of the Peri-Implant Sulcus and Implant Connection of Implants Restored With Cemented Versus Screw-Retained Superstructures: A Cross-Sectional Study. J Periodontol. 2016;87(9):1002-11.] |
Retrospective clinical study |
Verifying bacterial colonization in cemented and screwed prostheses |
55 cemented and 46 screwed prostheses |
Cemented prostheses had significantly higher bacterial loads in the peri-implant groove, but with significantly lower bacterial loads in the inner portion of the implant connection |
| Anchieta et al. [22 Anchieta RB, Machado LS, Hirata R, Bonfante EA, Coelho PG. Platform-Switching for Cemented Versus Screwed Fixed Dental Prostheses: Reliability and Failure Modes: An In Vitro Study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18(4):830-9.] |
Retrospective clinical study |
To evaluate the probability of survival of fixed prostheses on cemented and screwed implants of three units |
168 implants with internal hexagon connection |
The cemented groups had a higher probability of survival than the screwed groups. |
| Millen et al. [99 Millen C, Brägger U, Wittneben J-G. Influence of Prosthesis Type and Retention Mechanism on Complications with Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Systematic Review Applying Multivariate Analyses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(1):110-24.] |
Systematic review with meta-analysis |
Identify the influence of the type of fixed prosthesis on the rates of biological and technical complications in the context of screw retention versus cement retention |
– |
Screwed prostheses showed a tendency towards significantly more technical complications than cemented prostheses with single crowns and fixed partial prostheses. Full-arch prostheses, cantilever prostheses and “all fixed prostheses” had significantly higher complication rates than single crowns |
Crespi et al.
[33 Crespi R, Capparè P, Gastaldi G, Gherlone E. Immediate Occlusal Loading of Full-Arch Rehabilitations: Screw-Retained Versus Cement-Retained Prosthesis. An 8-Year Clinical Evaluation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(6):1406-11.] |
Eight-year follow-up clinical survey |
Observe the survival and success of restorations with screwed and cemented implants |
Screwed and cemented prosthetic structures. |
The survival rate was 99.27%. The two groups did not show statistically significant differences in bone loss |
| Wittnben et al. [55 Wittneben J-G, 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(Supplement):84-98.] |
Searching electronic databases |
Evaluate survival results and complications of screwed and cemented fixed reconstructions |
Screwed and cemented fixed reconstructions supported on dental implants |
Screwed reconstructions showed less technical and biological complications in general. |
| Vigolo et al. [1010 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(5):1102-7.] |
10-year randomized controlled trial |
To analyze the clinical behavior of peri-implant marginal bone and peri-implant soft tissue |
Implant-retained, cemented and screw-retained single crowns |
There was no evidence of a significant difference in the clinical behavior of peri-implant marginal bone or peri-implant soft tissue between groups |
| Nissan et al. [1111 Vigolo P, Givani A, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 4-year prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(2):260-5.] |
10-year randomized controlled trial |
Analyze the clinical behavior of peri-implant marginal bone and peri-implant soft tissues |
Cemented and screwed single crowns retained by implants |
There was no evidence of a significant difference in the clinical behavior of peri-implant marginal bone or peri-implant soft tissue between groups. |
| Zarone et al. [1212 Derks J, Schaller D, Håkansson J, Wennström JL, Tomasi C, Berglundh T. Effectiveness of Implant Therapy Analyzed in a Swedish Population. J Dent Res. 2016;95(1):43-9.] |
In vitro studie |
Obtain the fracture resistance of screwed and cemented single porcelain crowns. |
Single screwed and cemented porcelain crowns |
Screwed crowns showed microcracks at the level of occlusal access to the screw and extensive fractures throughout the thickness of the ceramic. Cemented restorations were affected by less extensive paramarginal fractures of porcelain. |
| Vigolo et al. [1313 Linkevicius T, Puisys A, Vindasiute E, Linkeviciene L, Apse P. Does residual cement around implant-supported restorations cause peri-implant disease? A retrospective case analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;24(11):1-6.] |
Prospective, controlled clinical study |
Compare cemented and screwed single crowns over implants for 4 years after prosthetic rehabilitation |
Cemented and screwed single crowns over implants |
There was no evidence of behavior different from peri-implant marginal bone and peri-implant soft tissue when cemented or screwed unitary restorations on implants were provided |
