Keywords: teeth, surgery, orthodontics, implant, screw fixation method, cement fixation method


 In dental prosthetics, every detail is important, because at this stage, not the aesthetic component is put in the first place, but the issue of engraftment of the implant. This will affect the further quality of life and the condition of the patient’s oral cavity. Therefore, in professional circles there are still discussions about which method of fixing the prosthesis is better - cementing or screw fixation, especially since both of them are widely used in dental surgery. This article will discuss the disadvantages and advantages of these methods.

The connection of the implant, abutment and crown can be performed in two ways: fixation on cement - an abutment is fixed on the installed implant with a screw, on which the crown and dental cement are fixed. Screw fixation - the crown is connected to the abutment in advance, in the laboratory, then the finished structure is attached to the implant. For connection, a screw is used, which is inserted into a vertical hole penetrating the crown and abutment. After installing and fixing the crown, a hole remains on the chewing surface (the so-called screw shaft) - it is covered with a composite material.

Of course, the screw design is mainly preferable due to the absence of excess cement. Excess cement is a good basis for biofilm formation. The larger the area of ​​the cement joint, the more bacteria appear. But the doctor is not able to use screw fixation in such situations: inconvenient entry into the implant shaft and there is no straight-line entry of the structure.

Screw fixation has other advantages and disadvantages. The following advantages are distinguished: the crown can be easily removed; construction details fit exactly; there is no danger of cement getting into soft tissues; less work in the clinic and laboratory.

So, when installing a denture, the orthopedist has two options for connecting the main parts of the structure (implant, abutment and crown) - cementing and screw fixation. In the first case, an abutment is fixed on the implant, and a cement-fixed crown is placed on top. During fixation, the screw crown is connected to the abutment in advance, and then the finished structure is attached to the implant itself. The method gets its name from a screw that is inserted into the crown and abutment and leaves a small hole in the crown. This "screw shaft" used to be a serious aesthetic problem, but now it is easily masked by the composite material.


de Avila ED, van Oirschot BA, van den Beucken JJJP. Biomaterial-based possibilities for managing peri-implantitis. J Periodontal Res. 2020 Apr;55(2):165-173. doi: 10.1111/jre.12707. Epub 2019 Oct 22. PMID: 31638267; PMCID: PMC7154698.

Barwacz CA, Avila-Ortiz G, Allareddy V, Tamegnon M, Hoogeveen K. An overview of U.S. predoctoral dental implant programs and their directors. J Dent Educ. 2015 Mar;79(3):265-77. PMID: 25729020.

Körtvélyessy G, Tarjányi T, Baráth ZL, Minarovits J, Tóth Z. Bioactive coatings for dental implants: A review of alternative strategies to prevent peri-implantitis induced by anaerobic bacteria. Anaerobe. 2021 Aug;70:102404. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2021.102404. Epub 2021 Jun 17. PMID: 34146701.

Esposito M, Ardebili Y, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014;22:7.

Palmquist A. A multiscale analytical approach to evaluate osseointegration. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2018;29(5):60.

Derks, J, Tomasi, C. Peri-implant health and disease. A systematic review of current epidemiology. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2015;42(16):158–171.

Kordbacheh Changi, Finkelstein, Papapanou. Peri-implantitis prevalence, incidence rate, and risk factors: A study of electronic health records at a U.S. dental school. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2019;30:306–314.

Hamed MT, Abdullah Mously H, Khalid Alamoudi S, Hossam Hashem AB, Hussein Naguib GA. Systematic Review of Screw versus Cement-Retained Fixed Implant Supported Reconstructions. Clin. Cosmet. Investig. Dent. 2020;12:9–16.

Ma S, Fenton A. Screw-versus cement-retained implant prostheses: A systematic review of prosthodontic maintenance and complications. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2015;28:127–145.

Sherif S, Susarla HK, Kapos T, Munoz D, Chang BM, Wright RF. A systematic review of screw- versus cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations. J. Prosthodont. 2014;23:1–9.

Wittneben JG, Millen C, Bragger U. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions—A systematic review. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants. 2014;29:84–98.

Mehl C, Ali S, El Bahra S, Harder S, Vollrath O, Kern M. Is There a Correlation Between Tensile Strength and Retrievability of Cemented Implant-Retained Crowns Using Artificial Aging? Int. J. Prosthodont. 2016;29:83–90.

Faot F, Suzuki D, Senna PM, da Silva WJ, de Mattias Sartori IA. Discrepancies in marginal and internal fits for different metal and alumina infrastructures cemented on implant abutments. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2015;123:215–219.

Nejatidanesh F, Shakibamehr AH, Savabi O. Comparison of Marginal and Internal Adaptation of CAD/CAM and Conventional Cement Retained Implant-Supported Single Crowns. Implant Dent. 2015;25:103–108.

Worni A, Gholami H, Marchand L, Katsoulis J, Mericske-Stern R, Enkling N. Retrievability of implant-supported crowns when using three different cements: A controlled clinical trial. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2015;28:22–29.

Gallucci GO, Hamilton A, Zhou W, Buser D, Chen S. Implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2018;29(16):106-134.

Di Francesco F, De Marco G, Gironi Carnevale UA, Lanza M, Lanza A. The number of implants required to support a maxillary overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2019;63(1):15-24.

Pieralli S, Kohal RJ, Rabel K, von Stein-Lausnitz M, Vach K, Spies BC. Clinical outcomes of partial and full-arch all-ceramic implantsupported fixed dental prostheses. A systematic review and metaanalysis. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2018;29(18):224-236.

Rabel K, Spies BC, Pieralli S, Vach K, Kohal RJ. The clinical performance of all-ceramic implant-supported single crowns: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2018;29(18):196-223.

Yao CJ, Cao C, Bornstein MM, Mattheos N. Patient-reported outcome measures of edentulous patients restored with implantsupported removable and fixed prostheses: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2018;29(16):241-254.

Hotinski E, Dudley J. Abutment screw loosening in angulationcorrecting implants: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(1):151-155.

Shin YG, Kim SY, Lee HK, Jeong CM, Lee SH, Huh JB. Effect of double screw on abutment screw loosening in single-implant prostheses. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29(5):445-447.

Dincer Kose O, Karataslı B, Demircan S, Kose TE, Cene E, Aya SA, Erdem MA, Cankaya AB. In Vitro Evaluation of Manual Torque Values Applied to Implant-Abutment Complex by Different Clinicians and Abutment Screw Loosening. BioMed Research International. 2017;2017:1–9.

Pjetursson BE, Zarauz C, Strasding M, Sailer I, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the influence of the implant-abutment connection on the clinical outcomes of ceramic and metal implant abutments supporting fixed implant reconstructions. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2018;29(18):160-183.

Sailer I, Asgeirsson AG, Thoma DS, et al. Fracture strength of zirconia implant abutments on narrow diameter implants with internal and external implant abutment connections: a study on the titanium resin base concept. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2018;29(4):411-423.

Pitta J, Hicklin SP, Fehmer V, Boldt J, Gierthmuehlen PC, Sailer I. Mechanical stability of zirconia meso-abutments bonded to titanium bases restored with different monolithic all-ceramic crowns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(5):1091–1097.

Sailer I, Strasding M, Valente NA, Zwahlen M, Liu S, Pjetursson BE. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic multiple-unit fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2018;29(16):184-198.

Carames J, Marques D, Malta Barbosa J, Moreira A, Crispim P, Chen A. Full-arch implant-supported rehabilitations: a prospective study comparing porcelain-veneered zirconia frameworks to monolithic zirconia. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2019;30(1):68-78.

Weigl P, Saarepera K, Hinrikus K, Wu Y, Trimpou G, Lorenz J. Screw-retained monolithic zirconia vs. cemented porcelain-fusedto-metal implant crowns: a prospective randomized clinical trial in split-mouth design. Clin Oral Invest. 2019;23(3):1067-1075.

Gibreel MF, Khalifa A, Said MM, et al. Biomechanical aspects of reinforced implant overdentures: a systematic review. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2019;91:202-211.

Slot W, Raghoebar GM, Cune MS, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. Maxillary overdentures supported by four or six implants in the anterior region: 5-year results from a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Periodontol. 2016;43(12):1180-1187.

How to Cite
Kosinov, O. S. (2022). COMPARISON OF CEMENT AND SCREW FIXATION OF ORTHOPEDIC STRUCTURES. Modern Medical Technology, (2(53), 44-48.
Original research