Screwed or cemented dental implant prosthesis?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Parize, Graziele
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Pestana, Taísa Iara, Cardoso, Ronald Farhat, Kim, Yeon Jung, Pallos, Débora
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