Cement retained vs Screw retained implant restorations?

Research
1

Here’s another interesting question, cement retained vs screw retained implant restorations, we fed our AI to get some research on this topic. Below is what our AI responded. (Feel to try OsseoNews AI yourself and let us know what you think!)

The comparison between cement-retained and screw-retained implant restorations has been extensively studied, with various factors influencing their performance and suitability. Here is a summary based on the provided context:

  1. Stress Distribution: A study using finite element analysis found that cementless screw-retained zirconia crowns with a base abutment showed lower maximum von Mises stress and strain values in the implant and supporting bone compared to conventional cement-retained zirconia crowns. This suggests that screw-retained restorations may offer better stress distribution and potentially reduce the risk of implant and bone complications.

  2. Clinical Outcomes: Several studies indicate no significant difference in clinical outcomes between cement-retained and screw-retained restorations. For instance, a randomized controlled trial found no statistically significant difference in implant-based reconstructions using monolithic hybrid abutment crowns (screw-retained) versus adhesively cemented crowns. Similarly, another study showed no significant difference in biological and technical complication rates between the two types of restorations over a 24-month period.

  3. Complications: Screw-retained restorations tend to have fewer technical and biological complications compared to cement-retained ones. Complications such as loss of retention, abutment loosening, and porcelain fracture are more common in cement-retained restorations. However, both types of restorations have shown similar survival rates over time.

  4. Patient Satisfaction and Clinical Preferences: The choice between cement-retained and screw-retained restorations often depends on clinician preference rather than clinical outcomes. Both types of restorations have shown similar patient satisfaction levels and quality of life outcomes.

  5. Retrievability: Screw-retained restorations offer easier retrievability, which can be advantageous for maintenance and adjustments. This feature can be particularly beneficial in cases where prosthetic adjustments are anticipated.

Overall, while both cement-retained and screw-retained implant restorations have their advantages and limitations, the choice between them should consider factors such as stress distribution, potential complications, retrievability, and clinician preference.