Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 26589441
- DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.08.026
Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Statement of problem: No consensus has been reached on which retention system, cement- or screw-retained, is best to avoid bone loss around the implant of a fixed implant-supported restoration.
Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare cement- and screw-retained retention systems in fixed implant-supported restorations in terms of marginal bone loss, implant survival, and prosthetic complications.
Material and methods: A comprehensive search of studies published from January 1995 to March 2015 and listed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library databases was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The meta-analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel and inverse variance methods. Marginal bone loss was the continuous outcome measure evaluated by mean difference (MD), and implant survival and prosthetic complications were the dichotomous outcome measures evaluated by risk ratio (RR), both with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Results: The 20 studies selected for review evaluated 2139 participants, whose mean age was 47.14 years and who had received 8989 dental implants. The mean follow-up was 65.4 months (range: 12-180 months). Results of the MD for marginal bone loss showed statistically significant differences in favor of the cement-retained prosthesis (P =.04; MD: -0.19; CI: -0.37 to -0.01). The implant survival rate was higher for the cement-retained prosthesis (P =.01; RR: 0.49; CI: 0.28 to 0.85), and the prosthetic complication rate was higher for the screw-retained prosthesis (P =.04; RR: 0.52; CI: 0.28 to 0.98). Additional analysis of the mean plaque index did not show differences between retention systems (P=.58; MD: 0.13; CI: -0.32 to 0.57).
Conclusions: The current meta-analysis indicated that cement-retained, fixed implant-supported restorations showed less marginal bone loss than screw-retained, fixed implant-supported restorations during the follow-up period, which ranged from 12 to 180 months. However, the small difference between the mean values may not show clinical significance. The rates of prosthetic complication and implant survival also compared favorably with cement-retained prostheses.
Copyright © 2016 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Cement- and Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Restorations Showed Comparable Marginal Bone Loss and Implant Survival Rate.J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2017 Jun;17(2):107-109. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2017.03.009. Epub 2017 Mar 29. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2017. PMID: 28501054
Similar articles
-
Screw- versus cement-retained implant prostheses: a systematic review of prosthodontic maintenance and complications.Int J Prosthodont. 2015 Mar-Apr;28(2):127-45. doi: 10.11607/ijp.3947. Int J Prosthodont. 2015. PMID: 25822297
-
Influence of prosthesis type and retention mechanism on complications with fixed implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review applying multivariate analyses.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 Jan-Feb;30(1):110-24. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3607. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015. PMID: 25615920
-
Techniques for locating the screw access hole in cement-retained implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review.J Prosthet Dent. 2023 Jul;130(1):48-58. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.030. Epub 2021 Nov 19. J Prosthet Dent. 2023. PMID: 34809995
-
Incidence of peri-implant disease associated with cement- and screw-retained implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Prosthet Dent. 2025 Jul;134(1):100-108. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.08.030. Epub 2023 Oct 2. J Prosthet Dent. 2025. PMID: 37793953
-
Clinical performance of screw- versus 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. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014. PMID: 24660192
Cited by
-
Effect of cement type on vertical marginal discrepancy and residual excess cement in screwmentable and cementable implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns.Odontology. 2024 Oct;112(4):1221-1230. doi: 10.1007/s10266-024-00938-w. Epub 2024 Apr 18. Odontology. 2024. PMID: 38634968
-
Short implants compared to regular dental implants after bone augmentation in the atrophic posterior mandible: umbrella review and meta-analysis of success outcomes.Int J Implant Dent. 2023 Jul 4;9(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s40729-023-00476-0. Int J Implant Dent. 2023. PMID: 37400739 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluation of marginal bone level, technical and biological complications between screw-retained and cement-retained all-ceramic implant-supported crowns on zirconia abutment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2024 Jan 1;24(1):25-35. doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_524_23. Epub 2024 Jan 24. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2024. PMID: 38263555 Free PMC article.
-
Should the vent hole of posterior implant crowns be placed on the lateral surface? An in vitro study of the hydrodynamic feature of cement extrusion and retention ability.PLoS One. 2022 Oct 20;17(10):e0276198. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0276198. eCollection 2022. PLoS One. 2022. PMID: 36264869 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical outcomes of single implant supported crowns versus 3-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in Dubai Health Authority: a retrospective study.BMC Oral Health. 2021 Apr 1;21(1):171. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01530-2. BMC Oral Health. 2021. PMID: 33794841 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Research Materials