The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

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

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Fracture Resistance of Cement-retained, Screw-retained, and Combined Cement- and Screw-retained Metal-ceramic Implant-supported Molar Restorations

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

Citation Information : Malpartida-Carrillo V, Tinedo-López PL, Ortiz-Culca F, Guerrero ME, Amaya-Pajares SP. Fracture Resistance of Cement-retained, Screw-retained, and Combined Cement- and Screw-retained Metal-ceramic Implant-supported Molar Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (8):868-873.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2884

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-09-2020

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


Abstract

Aim: To compare fracture resistance between the cement-retained (CR), screw-retained (SR), and combined cement- and screw-retained (CCSR) metal-ceramic (MC) implant-supported molar restorations and the fracture mode after vertical loading simulation. Materials and methods: Thirty MC molar restorations were fabricated on thirty tilted dental implants that were repositioned using prefabricated or universal castable long abutments (UCLA) with 15° of angulation divided into three groups of ten specimens each. Group C: CR, group S: SR, and group CS: cement- and screw-retained. The crowns in group CS were adhesively bonded extraorally, and composite resin was used to fill the screw access holes (SAHs) in groups S and CS. Subsequently, all the specimens were tested for fracture resistance. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) evaluation of the fracture mode was also performed. Mean values of fracture loads were calculated and compared in Newtons (N) using one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test (p < 0.05) for each group. Results: Mean fracture load values were 2718.00 ± 266.25 N for group C, 2125.10 ± 293.82 N for group S, and 2508.00 ± 153.59 N for group CS. Significant differences were found between group S and the other groups on fracture load values. However, no significant differences were found between groups C and CS (p = 0.154). The failures were at MC framework interfaces on mesiolingual cusps. Conclusions: Cement and CCSR MC molar restorations showed comparable fracture resistance using abutments with 15° of angulation. However, SR design showed significantly the lowest values of resistance. Screw access hole did not significantly affect the fracture resistance of cemented MC molar restorations. All the specimens exhibited mixed adhesive fractures at the mesiolingual cusps. Clinical significance: Combined cement- and screw-retained restorations (CCSRRs) incorporate the simplicity of the cement method and the retrievability of the screw method, offering good resistance, allowing the removal of the excess of cement before clinical placement of the restoration, and providing another alternative for dental implant rehabilitation.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Wong CKK, Narvekar U, Petridis H. Prosthodontic complications of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic, complete-arch fixed implant prostheses with minimum 5 years mean follow up period. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont 2019;28(2): 722–735. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12797.
  2. Sailer I, Strasding M, Valente NA, et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic multiple-unit fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29(Suppl. 16):184–198. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13277.
  3. Pjetursson BE, Valente NA, Strasding M, et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29(Suppl. 16):199–214. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13306.
  4. Hofstede TM, Ercoli C, Hagan ME. Alternative complete-arch cement-retained implant-supported fixed partial denture. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82(1):94–99. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70133-2.
  5. Bidra AS. Prosthodontic safety checklist before delivery of screw-retained and cement-retained implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119(1):193–194. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.013.
  6. 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.
  7. Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained vs screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18(5):719–728.
  8. Torrado E, Ercoli C, Al Mardini MA, et al. A comparison of the porcelain fracture resistance of screw-retained and cement-retained implant-supported metal-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91(6):532–537. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.03.014.
  9. Sailer I, Mühlemann 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.
  10. Gómez-Polo M, Ortega R, Gómez-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.
  11. Chee W, Jivraj S. Screw vs cemented implant supported restorations. Br Dent J 2006;201(8):501–507. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4814157.
  12. 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.
  13. Korsch M, Robra BP, Walther W. Cement-associated signs of inflammation: retrospective analysis of the effect of excess cement on peri-implant tissue. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28(1):11–18. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4043.
  14. Staubli N, Walter C, Schmidt JC, et al. Excess cement and the risk of peri-implant disease—A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28(10):1278–1290. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12954.
  15. Wittneben JG, Millen C, Bägger 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Uludag B, Celik G. Fabrication of a cement- and screw-retained multiunit implant restoration. J Oral Implantol 2006;32(5):248–250. DOI: 10.1563/811.1.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. Al-Omari WM, Shadid R, Abu-Naba'a L, et al. Porcelain fracture resistance of screw-retained, cement-retained, and screw-cement-retained implant-supported metal ceramic posterior crowns. J Prosthodont 2010;19(4):263–273. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00560.x.
  21. Shadid RM, Abu-Naba'a L, Al-Omari WM, et al. Effect of an occlusal screw-access hole on the fracture resistance of permanently cemented implant crowns: a laboratory study. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24(3):267–269.
  22. Mokhtarpour H, Eftekhar R, Mahshid M, et al. Effect of screw access hole preparation on fracture load of implant-supported zirconia-based crowns: an in vitro study. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2016;10(3):181–188. DOI: 10.15171/joddd.2016.029.
  23. 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 2015;16(Suppl 1):61–67.
  24. Hussien AN, Rayyan MM, Sayed NM, et al. Effect of screw-access channels on the fracture resistance of 3 types of ceramic implant-supported crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116(2):214–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.016.
  25. Honda J, Komine F, Kamio S, et al. Fracture resistance of implant-supported screw-retained zirconia-based molar restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28(9):1119–1126. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12926.
  26. Stanley JN, Major MA. Wheeler's dental anatomy, physiology and occlusion. In: The Permanent Mandibular Molars. 9th ed., Elsevier Health Sciences.
  27. Heintze SD, Rousson V. Survival of zirconia- and metal-supported fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont 2010c;23(6):493–502.
  28. Crespi R, Vinci R, Capparé P, et al. A clinical study of edentulous patients rehabilitated according to the “all on four” immediate function protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27(2): 428–434.
  29. Peñarrocha DM, Maestre FL, Peñarrocha OD, et al. Tilted implants for the restoration of posterior mandibles with horizontal atrophy: an alternative treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;71(5):856–864. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2012.12.016.
  30. Calderon PS, Kogawa EM, Lauris JR, et al. The influence of gender and bruxism on the human maximum bite force. J Appl Oral Sci 2006;14(6):448–453. DOI: 10.1590/S1678-77572006000600011.
  31. Palinkas M, Nassar MS, Cecílio FA, et al. Age and gender influence on maximal bite force and masticatory muscles thickness. Arch Oral Biol 2010;55(10):797–802. DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2010.06.016.
  32. de Abreu RA, Pereira MD, Furtado F, et al. Masticatory efficiency and bite force in individuals with normal occlusion. Arch Oral Biol 2014;59(10):1065–1074. DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2014.05.005.
  33. Alarwali AM, Kutty MG, Al-Haddad AY, et al. Fracture resistance of three different all ceramic crowns: in vitro study. Am J Dent 2018;31(1):39–44.
  34. Tarica DY, Alvarado VM, Truong ST. Survey of United States dental schools on cementation protocols for implant crown restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103(2):68–79. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10) 00016-8.
  35. 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.
  36. Zarone F, Sorrentino R, Traini T, et al. Fracture resistance of implant-supported screw-vs cement-retained porcelain fused to metal single crowns: SEM fractographic analysis. Dent Mater 2007;23(3):296–301. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.10.013.
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. Heo YK, Lim YJ. A newly designed screw- and cement-retained prosthesis and its abutments. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28(6):612–614. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4236.
  40. 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.