Reliability of retrievable cemented implant-supported prostheses

Joseph Nissan*, David Snir, Ofir Rosner, Roni Kolerman, Liat Chaushu, Gavriel Chaushu

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Scopus citations


Statement of problem One of the disadvantages of a cemented implant restoration is the potential difficulty of retrieving it. The restoration may be destroyed during removal. Purpose The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to assess the long-term survival rates of cemented posterior metal ceramic implant-supported prostheses (ISPs) with a metal screw access hole. Material and methods During a 12-year period, 274 cemented ISPs with an abutment screw access hole in the metal framework were assessed and served as the study group, and 119 conventional cemented ISPs (without access hole) served as the control group. Participants were followed every 6 months in the first year and once a year subsequently. Ceramic fracture, screw loosening, and refabrication were the prosthetic outcome parameters evaluated at the recall. The Pearson Chi square and Fisher exact test were used to compare the outcome parameters between the control and study groups. Results A total of 1005 implants and 393 ISPs were evaluated. Ceramic fracture occurred in 6.6% of the ISPs (6.2% test and 7.6% control). Screw loosening occurred in 3.28% of the test group and 3.36% of the control group. Refabrication of ISPs was done in 2.79% of all restorations, (1.45% test and 6.72% control [P=.012]). Conclusions Within the limits of this study, preparing cemented ISPs with a screw access hole in the metal framework improves ISP survival rates over time and lowers the cost of maintenance without increasing the risk for porcelain fracture or screw loosening.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)587-591
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Issue number5
StatePublished - 1 May 2016


Dive into the research topics of 'Reliability of retrievable cemented implant-supported prostheses'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this