Prosthetics on implants: cement or screw-retained? A review of the literature

A review of the literature

Abstract

Introduction: The discovery of titanium osseointegrated implants enabled the development of screw or cement-retained dental prostheses. However, each retention method involves different aspects. Objective: this study aims at reviewing the literature of in vitro and in vivo studies of the last 7 years on the mechanical, biological, aesthetic and occlusal properties and the cost of screw and cementretained prostheses to identify what can promote greater longevity and economy by considering the patient’s clinical framework. Data sources: Our method was based on the collection of scientific articles published in English from 2012 to 2018 in the PubMed database. Summary of the findings: we noted that in some clinical cases, a retention method was more appropriate than the other, as seen in the access to the posterior region or the palatal face of the crowns, the position/angulation of implants in the anterior region, the patient’s health and economic conditions. Both protheses can suffer or not from mechanical and biological complications. Reversibility can also be associated to cement-retained protheses. There are alternatives to screwed prosthetics to achieve satisfactory aesthetics in the anterior region despite being more expensive. Ideal occlusion tends to be more easily achieved by cemented prosthesis as it avoids prosthetics screws and the formation of crown holes, despite the contributions of correct planning followed by the analysis of static and in motion occlusions. Conclusion: each retention method has its advantages and disadvantages. Therefore,the best method is the one that best fits the characteristics and needs of each patient.