Cemented-retained vs screw-retained implant restorations: an investigation on 1939 dental implants.

M. Cicciù, M. Beretta, G. Risitano, C. Maiorana

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


AIM: The aim of this work was to present a comparison of screw-retained and cemented-retained implant prostheses based on a retrospective analysis of 1 939 dental implants. The advantages, disadvantages, and limitations of those two different types of dental restorations are discussed and compared with the recent international literature. It is important to underline the influence of the attachment mechanism on many clinical aspects of implant dentistry. METHODS: A group of 527 patients was analyzed. All of the patients required implant rehabilitation. 1 939 dental implants were positioned between January 1997 and December 2003. RESULTS: The analyzed clinical trials show the presence of several factors essential to the long-term success of any implant prosthesis. Aesthetic, retrievability, passivity of framework, occlusion, ease of fabrication and cost and retention. In this study, 762 cemented dental prostheses were used for 1 551 dental implants placed. The survival rate of this rehabilitation was 98.4 % with an average of 34.7 month follow-up; 84 screwed-dental prostheses were placed on 330 dental implants. The success percentage of this type of prostheses was 100% with an average of 44.3 month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Cemented-implant prosthesis and screw-retained implant prosthesis analyzed in this investigation, present with advantages and disadvantages. Clinicians should be aware of the limitations and disadvantages of each type of prosthesis, so as to select the one that is most appropriate for a given clinical situation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)167-179
Number of pages13
JournalMinerva Stomatologica
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2008

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)


Dive into the research topics of 'Cemented-retained vs screw-retained implant restorations: an investigation on 1939 dental implants.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this