Management of a Fractured Multiunit Maxillary Implant‐Supported Fixed Prosthesis with Stripped Abutment Screws Using a Hybrid Cement‐Retained and Screw‐Retained Design: A 5‐Year Follow‐Up Clinical Report

Fracture and loosening of implant‐supported prostheses (ISPs) are complications encountered in routine dental practice. In the present report, management of a fractured maxillary full‐arch cement‐retained (CR) fixed dental prosthesis supported by six implants is presented. Due to stripped screws, complications were encountered that prevented the retrieval of two of the six abutment screws, which was managed by using a hybrid retention approach, whereby a single full‐arch CR and screw‐retained (SR) ISP was used. The techniques used to successfully retrieve four of the abutment screws are described. The final retention design involved a combination of three CR and three SR restorations, which offers the advantages of both retention designs.     

Screw retained vs. cement retained implant‐supported fixed dental prosthesis

A fixed dental prosthesis can be secured to an endosseous implant via cementation (using a provisional or definitive cement) on an implant abutment that is screw retained to the implant or directly in the implant via screw retention. The clinical decision as to which retention system best suits the individual patient depends on several factors. The aim of this review is to present a detailed overview of the factors potentially influencing whether to choose screw retention or cement retention. These factors include the individual indication, advantages and disadvantages of the different retention mechanisms, the retention provided, retrievability, provisionalization, esthetics and clinical performance, including failures and complications. The results of recently published systematic reviews on this topic are discussed and an overview is provided. A decision tree is presented to facilitate the clinical selection of the retention type. This overview concludes that the choice of retention type (screw retained or cement retained) might not influence the overall survival of the implant‐supported fixed dental prosthesis, but may be responsible for the development of certain complications. The decision may depend on technical feasibility and on weighing the pros and cons.     

Full‐Arch Implant‐Supported Fixed Dental Prosthesis Retained by a Combination of Galvano‐Telescopic Copings and Screws: A Clinical Report

Full‐arch screw‐retained implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses have a high long‐term success rate and are considered the gold standard by many clinicians. However, accurate fabrication of a passive fit long‐span prosthesis can be challenging. A novel intraoral adhesion method using galvano‐telescopic copings was proposed as a way of improving prosthetic fit for edentulous patients. This report describes the treatment of a 74‐year‐old female with a full‐arch implant‐supported dental prosthesis, supported by a combination of galvano‐telescopic copings and screws to prevent retention loss. Four years have passed since this superstructure was placed, during this time she exhibited a good clinical course with no inflammation noted in surrounding tissues. Treatment with an implant‐supported fixed dental prosthesis, retained by a combination of galvano‐telescopic copings and screws, can be a useful alternative treatment for edentulous patients.     

Fabrication of a Fixed Retrievable Implant‐supported Prosthesis Based on Electroforming: A Technical Report

This article describes a method of fabricating a fixed retrievable implant‐retained prosthesis based on electroforming. This method combines the advantages of both the cement‐ and screw‐retained prostheses, including passive fit, ease of fabrication, and retrievability. The absence of visible occlusal screw‐canals adds to its increased esthetic appeal.     

Investigation of the Association Between Cement Retention and Prevalent Peri‐Implant Diseases: A Cross‐Sectional Study

Background: The aim of this study is to examine the association between retention type (cement‐retained versus screw‐retained restorations) and prevalence of peri‐implant diseases in a German university‐treated population. Methods: Data were analyzed from individuals that underwent clinical and radiographic peri‐implant examinations as part of a university‐based cross‐sectional study from September 2011 to October 2012. Results: Data from 139 individuals (mean age: 57.59 years) having 394 implants were analyzed: 192 implants supporting single crowns and 202 fixed partial dentures. Overall, 11.9% of the participants had peri‐implantitis, whereas 68.9% had peri‐implant mucositis. Crude odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for peri‐implantitis and peri‐implant mucositis for cement‐ versus screw‐retained restorations were 1.43 (0.45, 4.60) and 0.89 (0.53, 1.48), respectively. Results remained non‐significant in multivariable models adjusting for type of restoration and smoking (all P values >0.50). There was also no effect of splinting restorations on disease prevalence in adjusted analyses (P values >0.32). Conclusions: In this university‐treated sample, there is no association between the type of prosthesis retention and peri‐implant diseases. Current findings show that, when appropriate selection and removal of cement is performed, cement retention is not a risk indicator for peri‐implant diseases.     

Management of a Damaged Implant for Retention of an Overdenture Prosthesis and Fixed Single Crown: Clinical Reports

This article demonstrates a method to salvage an implant that has been damaged or is no longer usable because of a fractured screw that cannot be removed. In the first situation the patient had a Locator abutment that fractured during torqueing of the abutment. Despite the attempt to remove the fractured screw, it was not retrievable, and the internal threads of the implant were damaged in the attempt to remove the screw. Rather than removing the implant or covering it and sleeping the implant, a custom cast post was used to restore the implant to function. A second example describes a patient with a fixed implant crown. The implant was damaged during attempts to remove the fractured screw. A custom post was fabricated and cemented, and a new crown was fabricated.     

Porcelain Fracture Resistance of Screw‐Retained,Cement‐Retained,and Screw‐Cement‐Retained Implant‐Supported Metal Ceramic Posterior Crowns

Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the porcelain fracture resistance between screw‐retained, cement‐retained, and combined screw‐ and cement‐retained metal–ceramic (MC) implant‐supported posterior single crowns; and to investigate the effect of offsetting the occlusal screw‐access opening on porcelain fracture resistance of screw‐retained and cement‐retained MC implant‐supported posterior single crowns. Materials and Methods: Forty standardized MC molar‐shaped restorations were fabricated. The 40 restorations were divided into four groups (SRC, SRO, CRP, and CSC) of 10 specimens each. Group SRC: screw‐retained, screw‐access hole placed in the center of the occlusal surface; Group SRO: screw‐retained, screw access hole placed 1 mm offset from the center of the occlusal surface toward the buccal cusp; Group CRP: cement‐retained, zinc phosphate cement was used; Group CSC: cement‐retained with a screw‐access hole in the center of the occlusal surface. The screw‐retained restorations and abutments were directly attached to 3i implant fixtures embedded in acrylic resin blocks. Subsequently, all test specimens were thermocycled and vertically loaded in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min until fracture. Mean values of load at fracture (in N) were calculated in each group and compared with a one‐way ANOVA and Tukey's Studentized test (α= 0.05). Results: Mean values of loads required to fracture the restorations were as follows (N): Group SRC: 1721 ± 593; Group SRO: 1885 ± 491; Group CRP: 3707 ± 1086; Group CSC: 1700 ± 526. Groups SRC, SRO, and CSC required a significantly lower force to fracture the porcelain than did the CRP group (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The cement‐retained restorations showed significantly higher mean fracture loads than the restorations having screw‐access openings in their occlusal surface. The position of the screw‐access hole within the occlusal surface did not significantly affect the porcelain fracture resistance.     

A 30‐Year Follow‐Up of a Patient with Mandibular Complete‐Arch Fixed Implant‐Supported Prosthesis on 4 Implants: A Clinical Report

Mandibular complete‐arch fixed implant‐supported prostheses are recognized as one of the earliest and most popular prostheses in implant dentistry. This prosthesis was the main focus in the early era of osseointegration. Despite its widespread popularity, few clinical reports have described long‐term follow‐up greater than 10 years for this type of prosthesis. This report describes a 30‐year follow‐up of a patient who underwent treatment for a mandibular complete‐arch fixed implant‐supported prosthesis with 4 machined surfaced implants, opposing a maxillary complete denture. This report documents a variety of photographs and radiographs taken over a period of 30 years to compare bone levels at various stages of care and maintenance, including de novo bone formation underneath the distal cantilevers due to functional loading. The biologic and biomechanical response to this treatment protocol and long‐term clinical observations and prosthodontic outcome and maintenance needs are also addressed.     

An Alternative Design to Overcome the Problem of Unfavorable Implant Angulations for a Screw‐Retained,Implant‐Supported Fixed Prosthesis: Two Clinical Reports

Two clinical reports present an alternative design to address the problem of unfavorable implant angulations if a screw‐retained prosthesis is desired. The restorations were designed as screw‐retained prostheses, except in the area with the unfavorable implant screw emergence. The frameworks in these areas were customized to receive individual cement‐retained crowns. This design offers retrievability and helps to minimize complications associated with excess cement without compromising the functional or esthetic outcome.     

Transition from Failing Dentition to Full‐Arch Fixed Implant‐Supported Prosthesis with a Staged Approach Using Removable Partial Dentures: A Case Series

The present retrospective case series is aimed at evaluating a staged approach using a removable partial denture (RPD) as an interim prosthesis in treatment to correct a failing dentition until such time as a full‐arch fixed implant‐supported prosthesis may be inserted. Eight patients, who had undergone maxillary full‐arch rehabilitation with dental implants due to poor prognosis of their dentitions, were analyzed. All treatment included initial periodontal therapy and a strategic order of extraction of hopeless teeth. An RPD supported by selected teeth rehabilitated the compromised arch during implant osseointegration. These remaining teeth were extracted prior to definitive prosthesis delivery. Advantages and drawbacks of this technique were also recorded for the cases presented. Among the advantages provided by the staged approach are simplicity of fabrication, low cost, and ease of insertion. Additionally, RPD tooth support prevented contact between the interim prosthesis and healing abutments, promoting implant osseointegration. The main drawbacks were interference with speech and limited esthetic results. Implant survival rate was 100% within a follow‐up of at least 1 year. The use of RPDs as interim prostheses allowed for the accomplishment of the analyzed rehabilitation treatments. It is a simple treatment alternative for patients with a low smile line.     

Individual Lithium Disilicate Crowns in a Full‐Arch,Implant‐Supported Rehabilitation: A Clinical Report

This clinical report presents the clinical outcome of a maxillary full‐arch implant‐supported fixed rehabilitation with lithium disilicate reinforced glass ceramic monolithic crowns opposing a mandibular metal‐acrylic implant‐supported fixed rehabilitation in a 62‐year‐old woman. Eight implants were successfully placed (four maxillary, four mandibular), and no complications occurred in the postoperative or maintenance periods. Six months after delivery, the maxillary and mandibular prostheses were found to be clinically, biologically, and mechanically stable, and the patient was satisfied with the esthetics and her ability to function. Although the present indications for the use of lithium disilicate are still restricted to tooth‐borne restorations, it is possible to successfully rehabilitate edentulous patients through implant‐supported fixed prostheses using lithium disilicate reinforced glass ceramic monolithic crowns.     

Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross‐pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists

Background: Implant supported restorations (ISRs) for the single implant may be cement retained or screw retained. Limited scientific evidence exists to support the superiority of a retention type for either implant or prosthetic success. The aim of this study was to assess preferences of Australian prosthodontists when restoring single implants. In particular, clinical practices for cross‐pin retained implant supported restorations for a single implant were investigated. Methods: A written questionnaire comprised of seven questions, some of which had multiple parts and of both open‐ and closed‐format, was sent to 124 Australian prosthodontists. The questionnaire asked recipients to identify: (1) their preference for retention choice when restoring a single implant; (2) the frequency of use; and (3) clinical practice when restoring a cross‐pin retained restoration. Results: Seventy‐seven per cent of respondents indicated that direct to fixture (DTF) retention was their first preference. DTF retention was also the most frequently employed restoration for single implants. Respondents indicated that cross‐pinned ISRs are employed to maintain retrievability or when DTF is not possible. The majority of respondents indicated they always or sometimes use a gasket with cross‐pin retained restorations, though gasket type varied. Thirty‐eight respondents (31%) indicated that they would never use a cross‐pinned retained restoration for a single ISR. Conclusions: Australian prosthodontists prefer, and more frequently restore single implants, using DTF retention. Queensland prosthodontists prefer cement retained ISRs. In comparison, cross‐pinned restorations tend to be the least favoured and least used retention type. In addition, variation in opinion exists regarding the need for a gasket and type of gasket to be placed.     

Replacement of Missing Anterior Tooth Using Screw Retained Implant Prosthesis in the Esthetic Zone: A Case Report with 3 Years of Follow Up

As more and more dental practitioners are focusing on implant-supported fixed restorations, some clinicians favor the use of cement retained restorations while others consider screw-retained prosthesis to be the best choice. As both types of prostheses have certain advantages and disadvantages, clinicians should be aware of the limitations of each type. Screw-retained implant restorations have an advantage of predictable retention, retrievability and lack of potentially retained sub-gingival cement. However, a few disadvantages exist such as precise placement of the implant for optimal and esthetic location of the screw access hole and obtaining passive fit. On the other hand, cement retained restorations eliminates unaesthetic screw access holes; have passive fit of castings; reduce stress to splinted implants because of minor misfit of the framework; reduced complexity of lab procedures; enhanced esthetics; reduced cost factors and non disrupted morphology of the occlusal table. This case report presents the replacement of missing left central incisor using screw-retained implant prosthesis due to palatal trajectory of the implant placement and inadequate abutment height for retention of cement retained prosthesis.     

Three‐Dimensional Location of the Retaining Screw Axis for a Cemented Single Tooth Implant Restoration

Retrievability is a major concern with cemented versus screw‐retained implant restorations. This article describes the use of cone beam radiography to help target and create a precise screw access opening for a loosened implant‐supported single crown retained by cement to its abutment.     

The cross‐pin retained implant supported restoration: a study of gasket placement and leakage

Background: Advantages of cross‐pin retained implant supported restorations (ISRs) include predictable retrieval and predictable retention. Unlike direct to fixture (DTF) or cement retained restorations, the prosthetic design of a cross‐pinned restoration retains gaps at the interfaces between the crown, abutment and cross‐pin screw. These spaces permit leakage into the suprastructure and gasket placement has been recommended to prevent this leakage. Methods: Five different gaskets were assessed for their ability to prevent leakage into a cross‐pinned ISR. The gaskets tested were: cement admixture on the cross‐pin screw; cement admixture on the inner surface of the coping and the cross‐pin screw; cement admixture on the inner surface of the coping only; cement admixture placed 1 mm from the margin of the coping and a filler placed in the abutment chimney. Results: Only gaskets which sealed both the cross‐pin screw interface and the abutment‐crown interface prevented leakage. A filler placed in the abutment chimney prevented leakage into this space but did not prevent fluid accumulating between the coping and abutment. Conservative placement of cement at the margin of the coping failed to prevent leakage. Conclusions: Cement gaskets may effectively prevent leakage into a cross‐pinned ISR. However, the use of a cement as a gasket has to be weighed against the issue of predictable retrieval, cement extrusion and incomplete seating.     

Maxillary Full‐Arch Immediately Loaded Implant‐Supported Fixed Prosthesis Designed and Produced by Photogrammetry and Digital Printing: A Clinical Report

The present clinical report describes the use of a photogrammetry system (PICcamera) for obtaining impressions and designing and producing an immediately loaded CAD/CAM provisional fixed prosthesis delivered in the mouth within 24 hours after implant placement in the maxilla. The stereo camera was used to capture the implant positions, automatically taking 350 images in less than 2 minutes. This photogrammetry system takes 10 pictures per second with a margin of error of under 10 μm between two scan bodies, and identifies the spatial position of each implant without physical contact. The three‐dimensional data for each implant are registered in vector format, together with all interrelated implant angles and distances. The information is stored in an STL file (PICfile). Information on soft tissues was obtained from an irreversible hydrocolloid impression that was poured in stone and scanned. An immediately loaded screw‐retained fixed prosthesis was made from acetalic resin using CAD/CAM, and its passive fit was evaluated in the mouth using the Sheffield test and screw resistance test.     

Using a Porcelain Furnace to Debond Cement‐Retained Implant Crown from the Abutment after Screw Fracture: A Clinical Report

When a screw fracture occurs on a cement‐retained, implant‐supported restoration, the abutment and restoration are completely separated from the implant's internal connection. Traditionally, an access hole is drilled through the crown to retrieve the broken screw, and the restoration can be placed again as a screw‐retained restoration. This clinical report documents a patient whose broken abutment screw was retrieved from the restoration by burning off the cement and separating from the abutment without drilling an access hole.     

Attachment‐Retained Gingival Prosthesis for Implant‐Supported Fixed Dental Prosthesis in the Maxilla: A Clinical Report

The rehabilitation of edentulous maxillae is a complex procedure due to the involvement of esthetic and functional requirements. A trial maxillary denture can be used to identify the need for adequate upper lip support when replacing removable complete dentures by implant‐fixed dental prostheses. This clinical report describes the outcome of the rehabilitation of an edentulous atrophic maxilla with unfavorable maxillomandibular relationship and deficient upper lip support. A trial denture was fabricated and used to diagnose the need for a prosthesis capable of restoring the upper lip support. The reduced upper lip support was also confirmed by a lateral cephalogram. The patient was rehabilitated by an implant‐fixed dental prosthesis associated with an attachment‐retained gingival prosthesis. The case presented shows that when loss of upper lip support is detected and the patient does not wish to undergo further surgical reconstruction procedure, the retention of a gingival prosthesis using a ball attachment is a satisfactory treatment option.     

The clinical success of tooth‐ and implant‐supported zirconia‐based fixed dental prostheses. A systematic review

The aim was to make an inventory of the current literature on the clinical performance of tooth‐ or implant‐supported zirconia‐based FDPs and analyse and discuss any complications. Electronic databases, PubMed.gov, Cochrane Library and Science Direct, were searched for original studies reporting on the clinical performance of tooth‐ or implant‐supported zirconia‐based FDPs. The electronic search was complemented by manual searches of the bibliographies of all retrieved full‐text articles and reviews, as well as a hand search of the following journals: International Journal of Prosthodontics, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants and Clinical Oral Implants Research. The search yielded 4253 titles. Sixty‐eight potentially relevant full‐text articles were retrieved. After applying pre‐established criteria, 27 studies were included. Twenty‐three studies reported on tooth‐supported and 4 on implant‐supported FDPs. Five of the studies were randomised, comparing Y‐TZP‐based restorations with metal–ceramic or other all‐ceramic restorations. Most tooth‐supported FDPs were FDPs of 3–5 units, whereas most implant‐supported FDPs were full arch. The majority of the studies reported on 3‐ to 5‐year follow‐up. Life table analysis revealed cumulative 5‐year survival rates of 93·5% for tooth‐supported and 100% for implant‐supported FDPs. For tooth‐supported FDPs, the most common reasons for failure were veneering material fractures, framework fractures and caries. Cumulative 5‐year complication rates were 27·6% and 30·5% for tooth‐ and implant‐supported FDPs, respectively. The most common complications were veneering material fractures for tooth‐ as well as implant‐supported FDPs. Loss of retention occurred more frequently in FDPs luted with zinc phosphate or glass–ionomer cement compared to those luted with resin cements. The results suggest that the 5‐year survival rate is excellent for implant‐supported zirconia‐based FDPs, despite the incidence of complications, and acceptable for tooth‐supported zirconia‐based FDPs. These results are, however, based on a relatively small number of studies, especially for the implant‐supported FDPs. The vast majority of the studies are not controlled clinical trials and have limited follow‐up. Thus, interpretation of the results should be made with caution. Well‐designed studies with large patient groups and long follow‐up times are needed before general recommendations for the use of zirconia‐based restorations can be provided.     

Fabrication of an Implant‐Supported Fixed Interim Prosthesis Using a Duplicate Denture: An Alternative Technique

The fabrication of an implant‐supported fixed complete denture prosthesis involves multiple clinical and laboratory steps. One of the main steps is to provide the patient with an interim fixed prosthesis to evaluate the patient's esthetic and functional needs as well as to enhance the patient's psychology before proceeding to the definitive prosthesis. Different techniques for fabricating interim prostheses have been described in the literature. This report describes an alternative technique that uses a duplicate denture made of self‐curing acrylic resin to fabricate an implant‐supported fixed interim prosthesis. The interim prosthesis was later used as a blueprint for the definitive implant‐supported hybrid prosthesis.