Research Article

Evaluation of Periodontal Pocket Depth around Single Tooth Implant with Cement and Screw-retained Implant Prosthesis

Md. Arifur Rahman
Holy Family Red Crescent Medical College Dental Unit, Bangladesh
Shahriar Zaman
University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh
Chinmoy Kranti Das
Rajshahi Medical College, Bangladesh
Mozammal A. Hossain
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Bangladesh
Farhana Tauhid
Holy Family Red Crescent Medical College Dental Unit, Bangladesh
Md. Humayun Kabir
Dhaka Dental College, Bangladesh
Md. Amzad Hossain
Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University, Bangladesh
DOI icon 10.24018/ejdent.2022.3.5.218

Read Counter
79

Downloads
90

Citations

Share

Article Sidebar

Submitted 2022-09-26
Published 2022-12-23

Read counter = 79 times

Table of Contents

Article Main Content

This clinical trial was planned to examine the long-standing clinical achievement of dental implants equipped either with cemented or screw-retained systems. A total of 100 teeth were selected based on the following inclusion criteria: should have a particular implant by means of cement and screw implant prosthesis, participants should have superior oral hygiene, non-alcoholic and non-smoker patients, and aged between 20 - 65 years. They were separated into two groups; 50 teeth were cemented (group A) and 50 by a screw (group B) system. At least 24 months evaluation was integrated to measure the periodontal pocket depth. Statistical analysis was done by using SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Science) where comparisons were assess by using the Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test; a P-value <0.05 was considered significant. It was found that at six months, periodontal pocket depth was increased in 2.0% of teeth in Group-A, but none in Group-B. Periodontal pocket depth increased significantly in group A (20%) at 12 months comparing to group B (4.0%). In the same way, at 18 and 24 months, teeth in group-A had significantly higher periodontal pockets (64.0% and 84.0%, respectively) than in group-B (8.0% and 32.0%, respectively). It can be stated that comparing to the cemented implant, the screw implant prosthesis perform better in terms of their periodontal pocket depth.

Keywords: Cement retained prosthesis, periodontal pocket depth, periodontal probe, screw retained prosthesis

References

  1. Ferreiroa A, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Pradíes G, Sola-Ruiz MF, Agustín-Panadero R. Cemented and screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth restorations in the molar mandibular region: A retrospective comparison study after an observation period of 1 to 4 years. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry. 2015; 7(1): e89.
     Google Scholar
  2. Wat PY, Pow EH, Chow TW. A new prosthodontic technique for fabricating cement-retained implant-supported prostheses. Quintessence International. 2000; 31(3).
     Google Scholar
  3. Keller W, Bragger U, Mombelli A. Peri-implant microflora of implants with cemented and screw retained superstructures. Clinical Oral Implant Research. 1998; 9: 209-217.
     Google Scholar
  4. Rutar A, Lang NP, Buser D, Bürgin W, Mombelli A. Retrospective assessment of clinical and microbiological factors affecting periimplant tissue conditions. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2001; 12(3): 189-195.
     Google Scholar
  5. Manawar A, Dhanasekar B, Aparna IN, Naim H. Factors influencing success of cement versus screw-retained implant restorations: a clinical review. Journal of Osseointegration. 2012; 4(3):43-47.
     Google Scholar
  6. Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CH, Schneider D. Cemented and screw‐retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2012; 23: 163-201.
     Google Scholar
  7. Kotsakis GA, Zhang L, Gaillard P, Raedel M, Walter MH, Konstantinidis IK. Investigation of the association between cement retention and prevalent peri‐implant diseases: a cross‐sectional study. Journal of Periodontology. 2016; 87(3): 212-220.
     Google Scholar
  8. Wilson Jr TG. Re: Investigation of the Association Between Cement Retention and Prevalent Peri-Implant Diseases: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Periodontology. 2016; 87(9): 998-999.
     Google Scholar
  9. Bernal G, Okamura M, Muñoz CA. The effects of abutment taper, length and cement type on resistance to dislodgement of cement‐retained, implant‐supported restorations. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2003; 12(2): 111-115.
     Google Scholar
  10. Emms M, Tredwin CJ, Setchell DJ, Moles DR. The effects of abutment wall height, platform size, and screw access channel filling method on resistance to dislodgement of cement‐retained, implant‐supported restorations. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2007; 16(1): 3-9.
     Google Scholar
  11. Cutrim ES, Peruzzo DC, Benatti B. Evaluation of soft tissues around single tooth implants in the anterior maxilla restored with cemented and screw-retained crowns. Journal of Oral Implantology. 2012; 38(6): 700-705.
     Google Scholar
  12. Nissan J, Narobai D, Gross O, Ghelfan O, Chaushu G. Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 2011; 26(5): 1102.
     Google Scholar
  13. Salomão GV, Santos FT, Junior SA. The importance of prosthetic planning for implant-supported dentures in esthetic zones-A case report. International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. 2019; 54: 15-19.
     Google Scholar
  14. Wittneben JG, Millen C, Brägger U. Clinical Performance of Screw-Versus Cement-Retained Fixed Implant-Supported Reconstructions-A Systematic Review. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2014; 29.
     Google Scholar
  15. Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2003; 18(5).
     Google Scholar
  16. Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 1997; 77(1): 28-35.
     Google Scholar
  17. Covey DA, Kent DK, Germain Jr HA, Koka S. Effects of abutment size and luting cement type on the uniaxial retention force of implant-supported crowns. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2000; 83(3): 344-348.
     Google Scholar
  18. Korsch M, Walther W. Peri‐implantitis associated with type of cement: a retrospective analysis of different types of cement and their clinical correlation to the peri‐implant tissue. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2015; 17: e434-e443.
     Google Scholar
  19. Vigolo P, Givani A, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 4-year prospective clinical study. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2004; 19(2).
     Google Scholar
  20. Weber HP, Kim DM, Ng MW, Hwang JW, Fiorellini JP. Peri‐implant soft‐tissue health surrounding cement‐and screw‐retained implant restorations: a multi‐center, 3‐year prospective study. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2006; 17(4): 375-379.
     Google Scholar
  21. Vigolo P, Givani A, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 4-year prospective clinical study. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2004; 19(2).
     Google Scholar
  22. Tecco S, Grusovin MG, Sciara S, Bova F, Pantaleo G, Capparé P. The association between three attitude‐related indexes of oral hygiene and secondary implant failures: A retrospective longitudinal study. International Journal of Dental Hygiene. 2018; 16(3): 372-9.
     Google Scholar
  23. Watzak G, Zechner W, Busenlechner D, Arnhart C, Gruber R, Watzek G. Radiological and clinical follow‐up of machined‐and anodized‐surface implants after mean functional loading for 33 months. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2006; 17(6): 651-7.
     Google Scholar
  24. Wadhwani CP, Raval NC, Ramer N. Peri-implant disease and cemented implant restorations: a multifactorial etiology. In Cementation in Dental Implantology. 2015: 29-45.
     Google Scholar
  25. Jivraj S, Chee W. Treatment planning of implants in the aesthetic zone. British Dental Journal. 2006; 201(2): 77-89.
     Google Scholar
  26. Al-Sabbagh M. Implants in the esthetic zone. Dental Clinics. 2006; 50(3): 391-407.
     Google Scholar
  27. Francis L, Pillai SB, Lylajam S. Clinical and radiological evaluation of screw-retained and cement-retained single-implant restorations-A comparative study. International Journal of Oral Care and Research. 2018; 6(2): 60-66.
     Google Scholar
  28. Kamperos G, Zambara I, Petsinis V, Zambaras D. The impact of buccal bone defects and immediate placement on the esthetic outcome of maxillary anterior single-tooth implants. Journal of Oral Implantology. 2016; 42(4): 337-41.
     Google Scholar