In vitro evaluation reveals retention differences in cement-retained prostheses with and without screw access, suggesting implications for aesthetic and functional outcomes.
The retention of cement-retain implants prostheses with and without screw-access channels, using Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) and resin cement. The methodology involved meticulous specimen mounting, scanning of abutments, 3D printing of resin patterns, casting, recovery, finishing, cementation, and tensile testing. Cement-retained implant restorations without access holes are recommended in cases with high aesthetic demand and increased masticatory load. Incorporating access holes aids in retrievability, retention, and occlusion, and decreases the extrusion of cement in the peri-implant space, but may compromise aesthetics. Thus, cementation of the implant prosthesis is recommended in cases with increased masticatory loads.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vivek et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: