SCREW VS SCREWED IMPLANT PROSTHESIS: ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES

• Autor(a) principal: Campos, Fábio Alexandre de Lima
• Data de Publicação: 2019
• Outros Autores: Melo, Antônio Renato
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Brazilian Journal of Implantology and Health Sciences
• Texto Completo: https://bjihs.emnuvens.com.br/bjihs/article/view/13
• topic: Reabilitação; Próteses; Cone morse; Implantes; Rehabilitation; prosthesis; system; implants

The use of dental implants revolutionized the oral rehabilitation technique, with implants prostheses being used for partial and total dental absences. Initially, a protocol was developed, which consisted of a screwed prosthesis on five or six implants for rehabilitation of the lower and upper arch. In situations where a great deal of precision associated with aesthetics was required, among other functions, the emergence of the cemented prosthesis emerged. Prostheses should restore function and aesthetics while maintaining the homeostasis of the bone-implant-intermediate-prosthesis system, but we can also opt for a principled prosthesis that can allow repair of the structure to protect the implants. Among the Morse cone implant prosthesis systems, we have screwed prosthesis and cemented prosthesis available. The aim of this article was through a literature review to demonstrate the various opinions on the subject, advantages and disadvantages of using cemented or screwed prostheses on cone morse implants, in view of the various clinical situations. The main advantage of the screwed prosthesis is the reversibility and the presence of the screw as a mechanism to prevent system failures. The cemented prosthesis has the advantages of passive seating, the possibility to solve problems of misplaced implants, greater aesthetics and more balanced stress transfer to the implants. Each case should be evaluated according to the variables to choose the best system. It was concluded that both cemented and screwed prostheses can and should be correctly used according to the clinical situation presented and the work ability of the operator, as well as the appropriate system to be chosen. There is no evidence that generally favors one retention mechanism over the other.