The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Vertical Marginal Discrepancy of Retrievable Cement/Screw-retained Design and Cement-retained Implant-supported Single Metal Copings

Pedro Luis Tinedo-López, Violeta Malpartida-Carrillo, Fernando Ortiz-Culca, Maria E Guerrero, Silvia P Amaya-Pajares

Citation Information : Tinedo-López PL, Malpartida-Carrillo V, Ortiz-Culca F, Guerrero ME, Amaya-Pajares SP. Vertical Marginal Discrepancy of Retrievable Cement/Screw-retained Design and Cement-retained Implant-supported Single Metal Copings. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (8):829-834.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2905

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 21-12-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim: To compare the vertical marginal discrepancy of retrievable cement/screw-retained design (RCSRD) and cement-retained (CR) implant-supported single metal copings cemented on implant abutments. Materials and methods: Single metal copings were fabricated for 20 4.5 × 10 mm titanium dental implants. Two groups of 10 implants each were randomly allocated. One group received RCSRD metal copings and the other group received CR metal copings. Both types of restorations were fabricated on solid abutments with 5.5 mm of diameter. The copings were cemented with resin cement. After the cementation procedure, cement excess was carefully removed in both groups. Inspections of coping-abutment vertical marginal discrepancy were measured using scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) under 800× magnification. The independent sample Student's t test was used to detect differences between groups (p < 0.05). Results: The RCSRD implant-supported metal coping group (57.80 ± 2.34 μm) showed statistically better vertical marginal discrepancy than the CR implant-supported metal coping group (64.40 ± 2.23 μm) (p = 0.001). Conclusion: The RCSRD implant-supported metal copings offer less vertical marginal discrepancy than the CR copings group. This new technique would decrease the marginal discrepancy with less bacterial filtration and biomechanical problems. Clinical significance: Retrievable cement/screw-retained design is another alternative technique for dental implant rehabilitation that combines the advantages of CR and SR prostheses. The hybrid design offers less vertical marginal discrepancy for better control of bacterial filtration and biomechanical problems.

  1. Chochlidakis K, Einarsdottir E, Tsigarida A, et al. Survival rates and prosthetic complications of implant fixed complete dental prostheses: an up to 5-year retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 2020;S0022–3913(19):30761–30769. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.022.
  2. Del Fabbro M, Testori T, Kekovic V, et al. A systematic review of survival rates of osseointegrated implants in fully and partially edentulous patients following immediate loading. J Clin Med 2019;8(12):E2142. DOI: 10.3390/jcm8122142.
  3. Pitta J, Zarauz C, Pjetursson B, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the influence of abutment material on peri-implant soft tissue color measured using spectrophotometry. Int J Prosthodont 2020;33(1):39–47. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.6393.
  4. Wittneben JG, Joda T, Weber HP, et al. Screw retained vs. cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Periodontol 2000 2017;73(1):141–151. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12168.
  5. Sailer I, Muhlemann S, Zwahlen M, et al. 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. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02538.x.
  6. Gomez-Polo M, Ortega R, Gomez-Polo C, et al. Factors Affecting the decision to use cemented or screw-retained fixed implant-supported prostheses: a critical review. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31(1):43–54. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5279.
  7. Priest G. A current perspective on screw-retained single-implant restorations: a review of pertinent literature. J Esthet Restor Dent 2017;29(3):161–171. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12283.
  8. Gapski R, Neugeboren N, Pomeranz AZ, et al. Endosseous implant failure influenced by crown cementation:a clinical case report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23(5):943–946.
  9. Pauletto N, Lahiffe BJ, Walton JN. Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14(6):865–868.
  10. Wittneben JG, Millen C, Bragger U. Clinical performance of screw- vs cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions—a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(Suppl): 84–98. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g2.1.
  11. Nascimento C, Ikeda LN, Pita MS, et al. Marginal fit and microbial leakage along the implant-abutment interface of fixed partial prostheses: an in vitro analysis using checkerboard DNA–DNA hybridization. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114(6):831–838. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.05.009.
  12. Martinez-Rus F, Ferreiroa A, Ozcan M, et al. Marginal discrepancy of monolithic and veneered all-ceramic crowns on titanium and zirconia implant abutments before and after adhesive cementation: a scanning electron microscopy analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28(2):480–487. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2759.
  13. Koc E, Ongul D, Sermet B. A comparative study of marginal fit of copings prepared with various techniques on different implant abutments. Dent Mater J 2016;35(3):447–453. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2015-252.
  14. Keith SE, Miller BH, Woody RD, et al. Marginal discrepancy of screw-retained and cemented metal-ceramic crowns on implants abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14(3):369–378.
  15. AlHelal A, Kattadiyil MT, AlBader B, et al. A Protocol for screw-retrievable, cement-retained, implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont 2017;30(6):577–580. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5321.
  16. Proussaefs P, AlHelal A. The combination prosthesis: a digitally designed retrievable cement- and screw-retained implant-supported prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119(4):535–539. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.019.
  17. Rajan M, Gunaseelan R. Fabrication of a cement- and screw-retained implant prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92(6):578–580. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.09.009.
  18. Malpartida-Carrillo V, Tinedo-Lopez PL, Ortiz-Culca F, et al. Techniques for retrievability and for registering screw access holes in cement-retained implant-supported prostheses: a scoping review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123(3):427–433. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.03.011.
  19. Singh R, Mahesh L, Shukla S. Extra oral cementation of implant prosthesis: a case report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2013;13(4): 627–630. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-013-0319-x.
  20. Canullo L, Cocchetto R, Marinotti F, et al. Clinical evaluation of an improved cementation technique for implant-supported restorations: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27(12):1492–1499. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12589.
  21. Nissan J, Snir D, Rosner O, et al. Reliability of retrievable cemented implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115(5):587–591. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.10.013.
  22. Wadhwani C, Pineyro A. Technique for controlling the cement for an implant crown. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102(1):57–58. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60102-5.
  23. Lo Russo L, Caradonna G, Biancardino M, et al. Digital vs conventional workflow for the fabrication of multiunit fixed prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis of vertical marginal fit in controlled in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122(5):435–440. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.12.001.
  24. Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, et al. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62(4):405–408. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(89)90170-4.
  25. Rosas J, Mayta-Tovalino F, Guerrero ME, et al. Marginal discrepancy of cast copings to abutments with three different luting agents. Int J Dent 2019;2019:8657582. DOI: 10.1155/2019/8657582.
  26. Uribarri A, Bilbao-Uriarte E, Segurola A, et al. Marginal and internal fit of CAD/CAM frameworks in multiple implant-supported restorations: scanning and milling error analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21(5):1062–1072. DOI: 10.1111/cid.12839.
  27. Groten M, Girthofer S, Probster L. Marginal fit consistency of copy-milled all-ceramic crowns during fabrication by light and scanning electron microscopic analysis in vitro. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24(12): 871–881. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00592.x.
  28. Siadat H, Alikhasi M, Mirfazaelian A, et al. Scanning electron microscope evaluation of vertical and horizontal discrepancy in cast copings for single-tooth implant-supported prostheses. Implant Dent 2008;17(3):299–308. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e318183621d.
  29. Martinez-Rus F, Suarez MJ, Rivera B, et al. Evaluation of the absolute marginal discrepancy of zirconia-based ceramic copings. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105(2):108–114. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60009-7.
  30. Kim KB, Kim JH, Kim WC, et al. Three-dimensional evaluation of gaps associated with fixed dental prostheses fabricated with new technologies. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112(6):1432–1436. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.07.002.
  31. Derafshi R, Farzin M, Taghva M, et al. The effects of new design of access hole on Porcelain fracture resistance of implant-supported crowns. J Dent (Shiraz) 2015;16(1 Suppl):61–67.
  32. da Rocha PV, Freitas MA, de Morais Alves da Cunha T. Influence of screw access on the retention of cement-retained implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109(4):264–268. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60055-4.
  33. Gale MS, Darvell BW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 1999;27(2):89–99. DOI: 10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00037-2.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.