Prosthetic Complications of Screw-Retained Restoration Using Multiunit Abutments Versus Intraoral Luting on Titanium Base in Implant-Supported Complete Overdentures Randomized Clinical Trial

Mostafa Saeed; Mahmoud Mokhtar El-Far; Amr Hosny Elkhadem

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2022.7662

Authors

Mostafa Saeed Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6475-750X
Mahmoud Mokhtar El-Far Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
Amr Hosny Elkhadem Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2022.7662

Keywords:

Screwmented implant prosthesis, Intraoral luting cement technique, Titanium base, Multiunit abutment

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This trial aims to study the difference between prostheses screwmented on full-arch implants using the intraoral luting cement technique on titanium bases versus transmucosal abutments in terms of prosthetic complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients were recruited in this trial, there were mainly two groups. A screw-retained full-arch implant-supported prosthesis was constructed over four dental implants on upper or lower jaws. For the control group, multiunit abutments were used to construct a screw-retained prosthesis. As for the experimental group, Ti-base abutments were used over the dental implants to construct a screw-retained prosthesis. In both groups, the prosthetic framework was made using polyether ether ketone (PEEK) material and luted intraorally over the titanium sleeve using resin cement. A binary outcome of prosthetic complication was taken in 6 and 12 months. Abutment screw loosening, prosthetic screw loosening, prosthetic screw fracture, abutment screw fracture, veneer fracture, framework fracture, Ti-base decementation, and overall prosthetic loosening were the prosthetic complications included in the trial.

RESULTS: At the end of the study, a total of 19 patients adhered to the trial. Throughout the exposure process of implants, two implants failed in one patient from the Ti-base group. This patient was excluded from the study on his request. There was no statistically significant difference present between Ti-base and multiunit abutment groups in terms of abutment and prosthetic screw loosening, abutment and prosthetic screw fracture, veneer and framework fracture, Ti-base decementation, and overall prosthesis loosening for 6 and 12 months. Data were explored for normality using Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests, data showed non-parametric (not-normal) distribution. Qualitative data were presented as frequencies and percentages. Wilcoxon and Mann–Whitney tests were used to compare the qualitative outcomes in this study.

CONCLUSION: Both multiunit and Ti-base are considered a viable line of treatment to construct a screw-retained full arch implant-supported prosthesis.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Hamed MT, Mously HA, Alamoudi SK, Hashem AB, Naguib GH. A systematic review of screw versus cement-retained fixed implant supported reconstructions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2020;12:9-16. http://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S231070 PMid:32021476 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S231070

Arce C, Lawson MS, Liu P, Chee MS, Lin P, Givan DA. Titanium bases following different surface treatments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(3):530-5. http://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5915 PMid:29355855 DOI: https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5915

Werbelow L, Weiss M, Schramm A. Long-term follow-up of full-arch immediate implant-supported restorations in edentulous jaws: A clinical study. Int J Implant Dent. 2020;6(1):34. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00232-8 PMid:32728859 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00232-8

Vercruyssen M. The use of CT scan based planning for oral rehabilitation by means of implants and its transfer to the surgical field : A critical review on accuracy. J Oral Rehabil. 2008;35(6):454-74. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01816.x PMid:18429973 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01816.x

Agliardi E, Clericò M, Ciancio P, Massironi D. Immediate loading of full-arch fixed protheses supported by axial and tilted implants for the treatment of edentulous atrophic mandibles. Quintessence Int (Berl). 2010;41(4):285-93. PMid:20305862

Ahuja S, Egbert N, Jain V, Cagna D. Managing maxillary proclination with novel designed angulated implants. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2017;17(2):202-6. http://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.203196 PMid:28584423 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.203196

Elkhadem. The effect of cantilever length and implant tilt on prosthetic and supporting structure in screw retained full arch prosthesis. cairo J. Published online 2011.

Aparicio C, Perales P, Rangert B. Tilted implants as an alternative to maxillary sinus grafting: A clinical, radiologic, and periotest study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2001;3(1):39-49. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00127.x PMid:11441542 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2001.tb00127.x

Mahmoud M, Norsiah B, Yunus B. Passive fit in screw retained multi-unit implant prosthesis understanding and achieving: A review of the literature. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014;14(1):16-23. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-013-0343-x PMid:24604993 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-013-0343-x

Mojon P, Oberholzer JP. Polymerization shrinkage of index and pattern acrylic resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;64(6):684-8. http://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90296-o PMid:2079675 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90296-O

Hsu C, Stein RS. A comparative analysis of the accuracy of implant transfer techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 1993;69(6):588-93. http://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(93)90287-x PMid:8320644 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(93)90287-X

Sorrentino R, Gherlone EF, Calesini G. Effect of implant angulation, connection length, and impression material on the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions: An in vitro. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010;12(Suppl 1):63-76. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00167.x PMid:19438937 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00167.x

Burns J, Palmer R, Howe L, Wilson R. Accuracy of open tray implant impressions: An in vitro comparison of stock versus custom trays. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89(3):250-5. http://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2003.38 PMid:12644799 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2003.38

Ercoli C, Geminiani A, Feng C, Lee H. The influence of verification jig on framework fit for nonsegmented fixed implant-supported complete denture. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14(Suppl 1):188-195. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00425.x PMid:22176765 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00425.x

La Cruz JE, Funkenbusch PD, Ercoli C, Moss ME, Graser GN, Tallents RH. Verification jig for implant-supported prostheses: A comparison of standard impressions with verification jigs made of different materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88(3):329-36. http://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.128070 PMid:12426505 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.128070

Sulaiman TA. Materials in digital dentistry a review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020;32(2):171-81. http://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12566 PMid:31943720 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12566

Jivraj S, Rawal S. Material Considerations for Full-arch Implant- Supported Restorations. United States: Springer International Publishing; 2018. p. 189-211. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65858-2_10

Yilmaz B, Kale E, Johnston WM. Marginal discrepancy of CAD-CAM complete-arch fi xed implant-supported frameworks. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(1):65-70. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.11.021 PMid:29475755 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.11.021

Uludag B, Celik G. Fabrication of a cement and screw-retained multiunit implant restoration. J Oral Implantol. 2006;32(5):248-50. http://doi.org/10.1563/811.1 PMid:17069169 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1563/811.1

Heller H, Arieli A, Beitlitum I, Pilo R, Levartovsky S. Load-bearing capacity of zirconia crowns screwed to multi-unit abutments with and without a titanium base: An in vitro pilot study. Materials (Basel). 2019;12(19):3056. http://doi.org/10.3390/ma12193056 PMid:31547045 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12193056

Ladino LG. Titanium bases in implant dentistry: A comprehensive narrative review. Sci Arch Dent Sci. 2020;3:51-9.

Ribeiro CG, Maia ML, Scherrer SS, Cardoso AC, Wiskott HW. Resistance of three implant-abutment interfaces to fatigue testing. J Appl Oral Sci 2011;19:413-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572011005000018

Oberg E, Jones FD, Horton HL, Ryffel HH. Machinery’s handbook. In: Guide to Machinery’s Handbook. 27th ed. New York: Industrial Press; 2004.

Siamos G, Winkler S, Boberick KG. Relationship between implant preload and screw loosening on implant-supported prostheses. J Oral Implantol 2002;28(2):67-73. http://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2002)028<0067:TRBIPA>2.3.CO;2 PMid:12498448 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2002)028<0067:TRBIPA>2.3.CO;2

Mohammed HH, Lee J, Bae J, Cho H. Effect of abutment screw length and cyclic loading on removal torque in external and internal hex implants. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016;8(1):62-9. http://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.1.62 PMid:26949489 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.1.62

Kim K, Kim M, Kwon H, Lee J. Variation in the total lengths of abutment/implant assemblies generated with a function of applied tightening torque in external and internal implant abutment connection. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;22(8):834-9. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02063.x PMid:21198900 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02063.x

Yeo IS, Lee JH, Kang TJ, Kim SK, Heo SJ, Koak JY, et al. The effect of abutment screw length on screw loosening in dental implants with external abutment connections after thermocycling. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(1):59-62. http://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3125 PMid:24451854 DOI: https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3125