Screwed or cemented dental implant prosthesis?
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Research, Society and Development |
Texto Completo: | https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/23112 |
Resumo: | Dental implants became a viable alternative involving the Odontology field developing the aesthetics function and the patient’s comfort. The choice of which type of prosthesis connection is based on their clinical situation of each case and also for own professional preferences. There are two types of prosthetic restorations commonly used in Implantology: the cemented one and the screw retained prosthesis; both have their own advantages and limitations. The decision of which prosthetic method to use starts during the planning stage and can imply the aesthetics, dental occlusion, retention, effect over the peri-implant tissue, among other complications, influencing the implant survival rate. The peri-implant marginal bone loss is one of the problems related to the late failure of the osseointegration of the implants, being a relevant cause of failure, because it may promote the implant removal due to the osseointegration loss. The goal of this study was to analyze and identify the relation of different types of prosthesis (cemented and screw retained) through a literary point, with the peri-implant marginal bone loss, as well as relate the used type of prosthesis with the implant survival rate. Therefore, it is concluded that the marginal peri-implant bone loss owns multifactorial etiology and there are other factors that influence the implant survival, which is not possible to obtain a straight bone loss comparison with the types of prosthesis installed. Nevertheless, the screw-retained prosthesis presented more biomechanical complications such as the screw loosening and the ceramic fracture; and the cemented prosthesis showed more biological complications involving the peri- implant tissues. |
id |
UNIFEI_0cda3316400f8c036ed3ae0cc1396cd0 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/23112 |
network_acronym_str |
UNIFEI |
network_name_str |
Research, Society and Development |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Screwed or cemented dental implant prosthesis?¿Prótesis de implante dental atornillada o cementada?Prótese sobre implante dentário parafusada ou cimentada?Dental implantsDental prosthesis, implant-supportedBone resorption.Implantes dentalesPrótesis dental de soporte implantadoResorción ósea.Implantes dentáriosPrótese dentária fixada por implanteReabsorção óssea.Dental implants became a viable alternative involving the Odontology field developing the aesthetics function and the patient’s comfort. The choice of which type of prosthesis connection is based on their clinical situation of each case and also for own professional preferences. There are two types of prosthetic restorations commonly used in Implantology: the cemented one and the screw retained prosthesis; both have their own advantages and limitations. The decision of which prosthetic method to use starts during the planning stage and can imply the aesthetics, dental occlusion, retention, effect over the peri-implant tissue, among other complications, influencing the implant survival rate. The peri-implant marginal bone loss is one of the problems related to the late failure of the osseointegration of the implants, being a relevant cause of failure, because it may promote the implant removal due to the osseointegration loss. The goal of this study was to analyze and identify the relation of different types of prosthesis (cemented and screw retained) through a literary point, with the peri-implant marginal bone loss, as well as relate the used type of prosthesis with the implant survival rate. Therefore, it is concluded that the marginal peri-implant bone loss owns multifactorial etiology and there are other factors that influence the implant survival, which is not possible to obtain a straight bone loss comparison with the types of prosthesis installed. Nevertheless, the screw-retained prosthesis presented more biomechanical complications such as the screw loosening and the ceramic fracture; and the cemented prosthesis showed more biological complications involving the peri- implant tissues.Los implantes se han convertido en una alternativa viable en el campo dental, devolviendo la función, la estética y el confort al paciente. La elección del tipo de conexión final de la prótesis se basa en la situación clínica de cada caso y también en la preferência del profesional. Hay dos tipos de restauraciones protésicas que se utilizan habitualmente en implantología: prótesis cementadas y atornilladas; ambos con sus ventajas y limitaciones. El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar e identificar, a través de una revisión de la literatura, la relación de diferentes tipos de prótesis (cementadas y atornilladas) con la pérdida de hueso marginal periimplantario, así como correlacionar el tipo de prótesis utilizada con la tasa de supervivencia del implante. La decisión sobre qué sistema protésico utilizar comienza durante la etapa de planificación y puede implicar estética, oclusión, retención, efecto sobre los tejidos periimplantarios, además de otras complicaciones, que influyen en la tasa de supervivencia del implante. La pérdida de hueso marginal periimplantario es uno de los problemas relacionados con el fracaso tardío de los implantes osteointegrados, siendo una de las causas del fracaso, que puede resultar en la pérdida de la osteointegración. Por tanto, se concluye que la pérdida de hueso marginal periimplantario tiene una etiología multifactorial; Las prótesis atornilladas tuvieron más complicaciones biomecánicas, como el aflojamiento del tornillo y la fractura de cerámica, y las prótesis cementadas tuvieron más complicaciones biológicas que involucraron los tejidos periimplantarios.Os implantes tornaram-se uma alternativa viável no âmbito odontológico devolvendo a função, estética e conforto para o paciente. A escolha do tipo de conexão final da prótese é baseada na situação clínica de cada caso e por preferência do profissional. Existem dois tipos de restaurações protéticas comumente utilizadas na Implantodontia: as próteses cimentadas e parafusadas; ambas com suas vantagens e limitações. O objetivo desse estudo foi de analisar e identificar, através de uma revisão de literatura narrativa, a relação dos diferentes tipos de próteses (cimentada e parafusada) com a perda óssea marginal peri-implantar, assim como, correlacionar o tipo de prótese utilizada com a taxa de sobrevivência do implante. A decisão sobre qual sistema protético usar tem início durante a etapa de planejamento e pode implicar na estética, oclusão, retenção, efeito sobre os tecidos peri-implantares, além de outras complicações, influenciando na taxa de sobrevivência do implante. A perda óssea marginal peri-implantar é um dos problemas relacionados com a falha tardia dos implantes osseointegrados, sendo uma das causas de insucessos, podendo resultar na perda de osseointegração. Sendo assim, conclui-se que, a perda óssea marginal peri-implantar possui etiologia multifatorial; as próteses parafusadas apresentaram mais complicações biomecânicas, como o afrouxamento de parafuso e fratura da cerâmica e as próteses cimentadas apresentaram mais complicações biológicas envolvendo os tecidos peri-implantares.Research, Society and Development2021-12-02info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/2311210.33448/rsd-v10i15.23112Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 No. 15; e503101523112Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 Núm. 15; e503101523112Research, Society and Development; v. 10 n. 15; e5031015231122525-3409reponame:Research, Society and Developmentinstname:Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)instacron:UNIFEIporhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/23112/20542Copyright (c) 2021 Graziele Parize; Taísa Iara Pestana; Ronald Farhat Cardoso; Yeon Jung Kim; Débora Palloshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessParize, GrazielePestana, Taísa Iara Cardoso, Ronald Farhat Kim, Yeon JungPallos, Débora 2021-12-06T10:13:53Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/23112Revistahttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/indexPUBhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/oairsd.articles@gmail.com2525-34092525-3409opendoar:2024-01-17T09:42:04.996989Research, Society and Development - Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Screwed or cemented dental implant prosthesis? ¿Prótesis de implante dental atornillada o cementada? Prótese sobre implante dentário parafusada ou cimentada? |
title |
Screwed or cemented dental implant prosthesis? |
spellingShingle |
Screwed or cemented dental implant prosthesis? Parize, Graziele Dental implants Dental prosthesis, implant-supported Bone resorption. Implantes dentales Prótesis dental de soporte implantado Resorción ósea. Implantes dentários Prótese dentária fixada por implante Reabsorção óssea. |
title_short |
Screwed or cemented dental implant prosthesis? |
title_full |
Screwed or cemented dental implant prosthesis? |
title_fullStr |
Screwed or cemented dental implant prosthesis? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Screwed or cemented dental implant prosthesis? |
title_sort |
Screwed or cemented dental implant prosthesis? |
author |
Parize, Graziele |
author_facet |
Parize, Graziele Pestana, Taísa Iara Cardoso, Ronald Farhat Kim, Yeon Jung Pallos, Débora |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Pestana, Taísa Iara Cardoso, Ronald Farhat Kim, Yeon Jung Pallos, Débora |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Parize, Graziele Pestana, Taísa Iara Cardoso, Ronald Farhat Kim, Yeon Jung Pallos, Débora |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Dental implants Dental prosthesis, implant-supported Bone resorption. Implantes dentales Prótesis dental de soporte implantado Resorción ósea. Implantes dentários Prótese dentária fixada por implante Reabsorção óssea. |
topic |
Dental implants Dental prosthesis, implant-supported Bone resorption. Implantes dentales Prótesis dental de soporte implantado Resorción ósea. Implantes dentários Prótese dentária fixada por implante Reabsorção óssea. |
description |
Dental implants became a viable alternative involving the Odontology field developing the aesthetics function and the patient’s comfort. The choice of which type of prosthesis connection is based on their clinical situation of each case and also for own professional preferences. There are two types of prosthetic restorations commonly used in Implantology: the cemented one and the screw retained prosthesis; both have their own advantages and limitations. The decision of which prosthetic method to use starts during the planning stage and can imply the aesthetics, dental occlusion, retention, effect over the peri-implant tissue, among other complications, influencing the implant survival rate. The peri-implant marginal bone loss is one of the problems related to the late failure of the osseointegration of the implants, being a relevant cause of failure, because it may promote the implant removal due to the osseointegration loss. The goal of this study was to analyze and identify the relation of different types of prosthesis (cemented and screw retained) through a literary point, with the peri-implant marginal bone loss, as well as relate the used type of prosthesis with the implant survival rate. Therefore, it is concluded that the marginal peri-implant bone loss owns multifactorial etiology and there are other factors that influence the implant survival, which is not possible to obtain a straight bone loss comparison with the types of prosthesis installed. Nevertheless, the screw-retained prosthesis presented more biomechanical complications such as the screw loosening and the ceramic fracture; and the cemented prosthesis showed more biological complications involving the peri- implant tissues. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-12-02 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/23112 10.33448/rsd-v10i15.23112 |
url |
https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/23112 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.33448/rsd-v10i15.23112 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/23112/20542 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Research, Society and Development |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Research, Society and Development |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 No. 15; e503101523112 Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 Núm. 15; e503101523112 Research, Society and Development; v. 10 n. 15; e503101523112 2525-3409 reponame:Research, Society and Development instname:Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI) instacron:UNIFEI |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI) |
instacron_str |
UNIFEI |
institution |
UNIFEI |
reponame_str |
Research, Society and Development |
collection |
Research, Society and Development |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Research, Society and Development - Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
rsd.articles@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1797052696672337920 |