Screw Versus Cement For Implant Prosthesis Installation. Part 1: The Logic Behind the Arguments.
Emil L.A. Svoboda PhD, DDS,Published to www.ReverseMargin.com
Update January 2, 2016
1
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
Next View Part 2: The Game Changer that tips the balance to Favour Intra-oral Cementation.
2AbstractPart 1: The Logic Behind the Arguments This subject has been reviewed many times over many years. Some conclusions do not follow from the evidence presented in the articles, or they
simply ignore pertinent evidence from the literature. Ignoring evidence about problems in the system makes it difficult to make informed conclusions.
The recent reviews are unable to show a difference in survival of implants on the bases of prosthesis insertion technique - screw or cement. It appears to be too difficult to see through the many variables contained in the studies that are the foundations of the reviews. Let us say the failures using either system, are about 5% for 5 years and 8 % for 10years, and the implants require significant home and professional care to reduce the impact of peri-implant disease.
What is causing the implants attached to Screwed-in Prosthetics to Fail? This is an important question. Let us review some of the less visible causes of these failures. Some failures appear to be related to implant-abutment misfit and exacerbated by mechanical challenges created by a need for prosthesis retrievability. These problems of screwed-in prosthetics appear to be very difficult to solve. They are discussed here.
Intra-oral cementation can optimize the fit of the implant-abutment connection. However, subgingival residual excess cement is a known risk factor for peri-implant disease. We know that it can be removed and thus reduce peri-implant disease by 60% (Slide #12). What if it could be prevented? That could surely reduce implant failure. That will be discussed in Part 2 below.
Part 2: The Game Changer that tips the balance to Favor Intra-oral Cementation. During 100 years of intra-oral cementation, nobody seems to have published on the effect of Gingiva on the flow of cement during the intra-oral
cementation process. Understanding this process is the key to mitigating its negative effects. Dr. Svoboda has created an “in vitro model”, that sheds New Light on the dynamics of intra-oral cementation. This is a “Game Changer”.
Understanding the “Gingival Effects” changes the logic behind the approach to intra-oral cementation. This is the basis of a new Cement Control System™ that allows us to prevent the poorly controlled injection of cement into the subgingival environment. This cement can be difficult to detect and remove.
This presentation refers to design features of the abutment-prosthesis complex and the dental cementation process that can make intra-oral cementation safer. Safer cementation also helps the clinician optimize the fit of the implant-abutment junction, unlike that seen with screw-in prosthesis techniques. The herein described innovations will likely tip the balance in favor of intra-oral cementation and hopefully reduce the incidence of implant treatment failure. Failure is expensive for patients, clinicians and the entire implant industry. It can be especially damaging to the patient-dentist relationship.
See Both Slide Presentations at www.ReverseMargin.com © Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
“Many advances in the Field of Implant Dentistry have improved the
quality of care we can offer our patients.”
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
3
There are still significant problems contributing to the deterioration of the
Foundations of our restorations through
loss of implant osseointegration.
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
4Review 2013 of Peri-implant DiseaseMucositis 30.7% of Implants 63.4% of the
patientsPeri-implantitis 9.6% of Implants 18.8% of the patients
Based on 6,283 implants and 1,497 patients Average 4.2 Implants /Patient
Average time 8.9 years ( Range 5 to 13 years)No Difference Between Cement or Screw
Installation
Atieh MA et al. The Frequency of Peri-implant diseases: A systemic review and meta-analyses. J Periodontol 2013:84(11):1586-1598
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
5Review 2014 of Peri-implant Disease
2,387 Cemented-in & 3,471 Screwed-in Prostheses5 years Survival Rates about 96%10 years Survival Rates about 92%
No Difference Between Cement or Screw InstalledProsthesis Survival Rates
Whittneben et al. Clinical Performance of Screw- Versus Cement Retained Fixed Implant-Supported Reconstructions: A Systemic
Review. The Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants; 2014:29(Suppl):84-98.
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, 2015
6Review 2014 of Peri-implant Disease
Systematic Review included 2882 Dental Implants - 25 papers
Major failures ( implant or prosthesis failure )No Significant Difference in Implant Survival, related
to Installation Technique - Screw versus Cement
Sherif S et al. A Systematic Review of Screw- versus Cement-Retained Implant Supported Fixed Restorations. J of Prosthodontics 2014 (23)1-9
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
7Review 2015 of Peri-implant DiseaseMucositis 33% of Implants 48% of the
patientsPeri-implantitis 16% of Implants 26% of the patientsFailure Rate 8.3% of implants 13% of the patients
Based on 225 implants and 96 patients Average 2.3 Implants /Patient
Average time 10.9 years, implant survival rate 91.7%No Difference Between Cement or Screw
Installation
Daubert DM et al. Prevalence and predictive factors for peri-implant disease and implant failure: a cross-sectional analyses. J Periodontol 2015:86(3): 337-347
8Conclusions from the ReviewsConsidering that these Reviews seem to be “tilling the same old soil”, is
there any wonder that the results are similar?The details differ, but success and failure of dental implants is where the
“Rubber meets the Road”
No Difference Between Cement or Screw Installation
However there is however One BIG Difference that I see! With Peri-implant Disease, it is often possible to remove excess cement and
expect an improved result! How do you treat Peri-implant Disease when dealing with the Screwed-in Technique? It is very difficult to correct the
implant-abutment misfit! What about implant distortion due to this misfit? Not even a remake will solve these problems! Let’s look at this in more detail
…….© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
9Study by TG Wilson 2009
Residual Excess Cement & Peri-implant Disease
1. All patients received cemented single unit implant crowns2. 39 consecutive patients with 42 implants had peri-implant disease -
test3. 12 of the same patients had 20 implants without disease and
without detectable subgingival cement – controls-- 32%4. 34 of 42 the test implants had Residual Subgingival Cement ( 81%)
and thus 8 (19%) had Peri-implant disease without subgingival cement.
5. After Cement Removal 25 of the 33 (lost one patient) no longer has signs of peri-implant disease after 1 month. (An additional 8 (20%) patients still had disease) - Therefore 40% of peri-implant disease implants had no detectable residual cement !
Thomas G Wilson Jr. The Positive Relationship Between Excess Cement and Peri-implant Disease: A Prospective Clinical Endoscopic Study. J. Periodont 2009;1388-1392
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
10Data Re-Interpretation “Incidence of Residual Cement”
Observation 1With the Cementation System Used
45% had no Visible Residual Subgingival Cement!
(20+8 = 28, 28/62= 0.45) Thomas G Wilson Jr. The Positive Relationship Between Excess
Cement and Peri-implant Disease: A Prospective Clinical Endoscopic Study. J. Periodont 2009;1388-1392“Not every cementation case ends up with Residual Subgingival
Cement”This is also an underestimate, as the group was pre-selected to represent the work from clinicians who had restored single cemented crowns to have at least 1 implant with peri-implant disease.
11Peri-implant Disease“Some Get Disease without Cement”
Observation 2With the Cementation System Used
13% had No Visible Residual Subgingival Cement but had Peri-implant Disease! (8/62= 0.13)
Thomas G Wilson Jr. The Positive Relationship Between Excess Cement and Peri-implant Disease: A Prospective Clinical Endoscopic Study. J. Periodont 2009;1388-92
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
“However the rate of peri-implant disease is much less than the 30-50% expected from the Reviews cited.
Does cementation create a better fit of implant-abutment connection and thus decrease disease by more than 50%? This could be very interesting!”
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
12Peri-implant Disease Reduced by Cement Removal!Observation 3
About 60% of the peri-implant disease caseswere helped by removing
Residual Subgingival CementAnd appeared to be disease free after 30 days
Thomas G Wilson Jr. The Positive Relationship Between Excess Cement and Peri-implant Disease: A Prospective Clinical
Endoscopic Study. J. Periodont 2009;1388-1392
“Most cases get better when Residual Subgingival Cement is removed”
13Not Only Cement Causes Peri-implant Disease
Observation 4About 40% of the peri-implant disease caseshad NO Residual Subgingival Cement!
(8+8=16, 16/42 = 0.40, Sample Size Small) Thomas G Wilson Jr. The Positive Relationship Between Excess Cement and Peri-implant
Disease: A Prospective Clinical Endoscopic Study. J. Periodont 2009;1388-92
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
“There is more to the story than Residual Subgingival Cement. The impact of the implant-abutment fit and its stability under load conditions needs to be investigated further under controlled
conditions.”
There are still Significant Weaknesses in the Implant-Prosthesis Connections
Affected by Installation Technique.
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
14
1) Implant-Abutment Connection at the alveolar bone level
2) Prosthesis-Abutment Connection at the more superficial gingival level
The Screw-in Technique
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
15
1. Abutments and prosthesis are cemented together Extra-orally into a rigid Complex.
2. This complex is made to fit on a model representing the mouth.
3. This Complex is then screwed onto dental implants already in the mouth.
It is difficult to asses fit or adjust contacts during prosthesis installation. The implant-abutment
connection can be prevented from seating properly by tight contacts with adjacent teeth and inherent
prosthesis-model inaccuracies.
16Extra-oral Cementation Makes the Implant-Abutment Connection Worse!
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
1. Solidifies Impression-Model Error because is assembled on the model not in the mouth. This error in dimension is huge!
2. Makes Abutment Installation more complex
3. Makes Prosthesis Installation more complex
4. Limits Use. Implant Position more important
5. In the anterior, it often requires technique related cantilevers for hiding screw access holes.
Screwed-in Prosthetics introduce unnecessary mechanical and biological risk factors that affect the survival of implant treatment. These risk factors can be very difficult to
mitigate.
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
17
1. Abutments are individually screwed onto dental implants inside the mouth.
Implant-abutment connections are not affected by contacts or prosthesis-model inaccuracies. Their fit is optimized.
2. The prosthesis is cemented onto the custom abutments.
It is relatively simple to adjust occlusion, fit and contacts prior to cementation. Implant angle is not so critical. The abutment-prosthesis connection is easier to control than the implant-abutment connection.
Cementation Technique
18Screw-in versus Cement-in Prosthetics Prosthetic Insertion
TechniqueScrew-in Cement-in
Abutment-ProsthesisComplex
Assembled on and fit to an inaccurate
model before installation
Assembled in mouth after installation of
Abutment(s)
Adjusting Contacts/Occlusion Difficult EasyOptimized Implant-Abutment Fit
Unknown/No Yes
Path of insertion considerations Yes NoScrew access hole considerations & repair
Yes No
Cause Technique Related Cantilevers
Yes No
Removable Yes Yes/No*Residual Excess Cement No Yes/No**© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS
2015*Many can be removed by creating an access hole. **Presentation Part 2: The Game Changer that tips the balance to Favour Intra-oral Cementation.
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
19What about Screwed-in Prosthetics?
They do have Benefits too! Easy to remove and reinsert Avoid problems related to residual
subgingival cementThey can be used in short crown situations
We will discuss these Relative Benefits later ….
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
20Further Analysis of the Process of
Screwing-in the Assembled Abutment-Prosthesis Complex
“The Screw-in Technique”
21What about Problems related to Screwed-in Prosthetics?
The BIG PROBLEM is: They Cause a“MISFIT or OPENING”
at Implant-Abutment Connection,at the deep subgingival bone level.
Dental Implant Prosthetics. Carl Misch, 2nd Edition, Elsevier-Mosby, 2015,Ch 28.Passive Fit in Screw Retained Multi-unit Implant Prosthesis Understanding and Achieving: A Review of the Literature. M.M.Buzaya and N.B. Yunus. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014, Mar;14(1):16-23 – an elusive goal!Bacterial leakage of different internal implant/abutment connections. Nasar HI and Abdalla M. Future Dental Journal 2015
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
22What Puts the Abutment Retaining Screw at Risk of “Failure to Prevent” an Open Implant-Abutment Connection?
1. Lower screw torque levels2. Tight contacts and Increased distance from implant-
abutment connection to contact point with adjacent teeth
3. Smaller implant platform diameters4. Cantilevers (off axis forces)5. Multi-unit Prosthesis inaccuracies6. Function
Let’s Look at the above problems More Closely ………..
231. Using Lower Torque to Tighten Abutment Screws
When an abutment screw is tightened, it clamps the abutment to the implant base. Anything that reduces the Clamping Force (red arrow) reduces its’ ability to hold the Prosthesis onto the implant.
35 NCm torque can give 741 Newtons Clamping Force20 NCm torque can give 423 Newtons Clamping Force
Reducing Torque from 35 to 20 NCm
reduces clamping force by a whopping 43%
Size and shape, metal, thread shape, thread frequency and fit all affect the optimal magnitude of this force for specific clamping screws.
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
24Reducing torque to 35 to 20 NCm reduces clamping force by a whopping 43%
Many of our smaller diameter implants, including those commonly used for incisors, specify a 15 or 20 NCm insertion torque for the Implant-Abutment Screw
Prosthetics screwed into place at these lower torques would be much less able to resist displacement by a functional load and by *tight contacts with adjacent teeth.
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
*see 2 below
252. Tight Contacts Can Cause Misfits of the Implant-Abutment
Connections!This misfit can be very difficult to detect at the time of affixing the prosthesis. Tactile senses and x-ray imaging only detect gross misfits, even with optimal perpendicular imaging.This misfit can cause early screw loosening and peri-implant disease!
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
Figure from “Dental Implant Prosthetics, Carl E. Misch,2nd Edition Elseier Mosby, 2015 Pg 739“The final torqueing down of the retaining screw can tend to shift or realign the abutment on its base. This can cause a tight contact on one side and a loose one on the other. At best, you will have a open and/or tight contact, at worst the abutment will be prevented from seating!”
26What About Prosthesis Contact Position?Torque on Clamping Screw 35 NCm (20 NCm)Load Force (LF) is Screw Clamping Force 741 N (423 N)Radius of 4.5 mm (3.0) Implant Top (D1) = 2.25 mm (1.50 mm)Length of Lever Arm (D2) = 10 mmEffort Force (EF) = the minimum Resistance that the Contact must provide to keep the abutment from seating
EF = LF X D1/D2 = 167 N (63 N)
Effort Force (Resistance offered by a tight contact with an adjacent tooth) needs to be only 22.5% of the Clamping Force to keep the Abutment from seating!Class 1 Lever Mechanics - Google Lever Mechanics - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever
LF
EF
D1
D2
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
“It is not possible with office dental imaging or tactile techniques to detect such misfits in the 15 micron range. Too bad since oral pathogens are about 1 micron in diameter and
less.”
27Varied Lever Arm Lengths to Contact Position
and Implant Diameters
8 mm 10 mm 12 mm020406080
100120140160
Force Threshold (N) Exerted Against Proximal Contact that could keep Abutments from Seat-
ing (Abutment Screw Torque 20 NCm, 423 N Clamp-
ing Force)
3 mm 3.5 mm 4.5 mm 5.7 mm
As distance from implant-abutment connection to the contact increases, so does the risk of a tight contact preventing an abutment from
seating.© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
LF
EF
D1
D2
28Varied Lever Arm Lengthsand Implant Diameters
EF
LF
D1
D28 mm 10 mm 12 mm0
20406080
100120140160
Force Threshold (N) Exerted Against Proximal Contact that could keep Abutments from Seat-
ing (Abutment Screw Torque 20 NCm, 423 N
Clamping Force)
3 mm 3.5 mm 4.5 mm 5.7 mm
As the Lever Arm Length Increases so does the risk of forces generated by function opening the implant-abutment
connection.© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
29
423 7410
50
100
150
200
250
Force Threshold (N) Exerted Against 10 mm High Proximal Contact that could keep
Abutments from Seating during Installation
3 mm 3.5 mm 4.5 mm 5.7 mmImplant Diameter
Newtons
3. Varied Implant Platform Diameter
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
Many implants reduce implant radius for perceived benefits of “Platform Switch”.
This also reduces the mechanical advantage of the clamping screw. This may not be ideal in the posterior of the mouth!
304. What about Effect of a 3 mm
Lateral Cantilever on Various Implant Diameters.EF implant implant D2 LF Abutment Mechnical
diameter radius (D1)Horizonta
l Screw Torque Disadvantage
N mm mm mm N NCm*212 3.0 1.50 3 423 20 50%
245 3.5 1.75 3 423 20 58%
494 4.0 2.00 3 741 35 67%556 4.5 2.25 3 741 35 75%618 5.0 2.50 3 741 35 83%679 5.5 2.75 3 741 35 92%741 6.0 3.00 3 741 35 100%
*33 3.0 1.50 3 423 20
+10mm vertical
lever
Fulcrum
D2=3 mm
EF
“We often create cantilevers to accommodate lingual access holes for anterior teeth. This puts the implant-abutment connection at additional
risk!”© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
31Example: Lets take a lateral incisor with a 3.0 mm abutment base and use a 20 NCm torque to seat it into place. There is a 10 mm distance from the implant-abutment connection to the contact with an adjacent tooth and we need to create a 3 mm cantilever to create abutment screw access from the lingual.
Fulcrum
D2=3 mm
EF
“We often create additional cantilevers to accommodate lingual screw access holes for anterior teeth. This puts all the implant-abutment connections at increased risk of failure!
This additional risk of failure is technique related.”© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
1. -Narrow Diameter 3 mm platform for incisors or platform switch purposes 2. -Reduced 20 NCm torque force on screw. Clamping force that would seat
crown is 423 Newtons 3. -Effort Force (EF) by a tight contact that would keep the abutment from
seating or the functional force required to dislodge the crown from the abutment would be : EF= 423X1.5/10= 65 N *** Start Sweating!
4. -Creating a 3 mm Lateral Cantilever for screw access reduces the Effort Force by 50% to dislodge crown from abutment – 33N ***** Bingo! No Hope!
Average Force often used to cement a crown is 40N – That finger pressure alone can open the above implant-abutment connection! Is that not scary to you?
325. Multiple unit screw retained prosthetics just amplify the effect of stress and misfit between
units!
The stress caused by the misfit of the individual retainers plus the pontic(s) between them, tends to push or pull the connected retainers and thus increases the amount of misfit and opening of their margins – at the bone level!
There is at least one major implant company that voids their “Warrantee” when clinicians choose to insert a multi unit prosthesis in such a fashion!
They take this type of misfit seriously! You should too.
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
Figure of implants above from “Dental Implant Prosthetics, Carl E. Misch, Elseier Mosby, 2015 Pg 740
33Acceptable Levels of Misfit at the Implant–
Abutment Interface - An error of 100 to 150 microns is considered clinically acceptable*.
*Review: Passive Fit in Screw Retained Multi-unit Implant Prosthesis Understanding and Achieving: A Review of the Literature. M.M.Buzaya and N.B. Yunus. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014, Mar;14(1):16-23*Passive Fit could not be achieved with Screwed-in Prosthetics!
Comparison of the Accuracy of Different Transfer Impression Techniques for Osseointegrated Implants. Zen BM et al. JOI Vol 41 No 6 2015: 662-667Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Tissue -integrated prostheses. Chicago: Quintessence; 1985. p. 253
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
Figure of implants above from “Dental Implant Prosthetics, Carl E. Misch, Elseier Mosby, 2015 Pg 740
Even the theoretical suggestion of “not more than 10 microns error”, by PI Branemark in 1985, could be considered sloppy when considering that periodontal pathogens are
only 1 micron in diameter and less.
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
34Overdenture retaining a “Screwed-on framework” was removed - Smells
Bad!!
Undersurface of framework and tops of intra-oral abutments reveal the extent of a noxious Biological Brew!
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
35Stress on Retainers keeps abutments from seating and creates misfit of components!
Abutment on Driver with
retaining screw facing upwards
Top of implant “external hex” showing residual
biological mass !This patient’s immune system was able to resist peri-implantits in spite of a massive bacterial inoculum.
36Can You Imagine that some “All-On-4” Screwed in Prosthetics are removed 1X /Year for Cleaning under
their Huge Non-cleanable Cantilevers!It takes only 4 hours for bacterial colonies to be seen on abutment surfaces.Nakazato, G., Tsuchiya, H., Sato, M.,Yamauchi, M., In vivo plaque formation on implant materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989; 4(4):321-6
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
“I wonder what happens to the screw threads inside the implants after 10-20 years …. 10-20X removal and tightening? Do the tops of the implants distort when loaded unevenly? Can that be fixed? I know this removal process is expensive …. Does this particular service even have a remote chance of being effective long term?”
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
376. What makes the fit worse? Intra-oral Function
The machining process for the mass produced dental implants and abutments creates irregularities between mating surfaces …. tiny hills and valleys. Mating surfaces can settle as a result of intra-oral function and the resulting micromovement.
This can loosen screws and create openings between implant components. These openings allow for the ingress and proliferation of bacteria which are known to be able to cause premature loss of osseointegrated dental implants.Dental Implant Prosthetics, Carl E. Misch, Elseier Mosby, 2005 Pg 453Zipprich Micro Movements on Implant Abutment Interfaces. Part 1&2. http://youtu.be/AssjiYjmTLE, June 12, 2013.
38“Intra-oral Function”What do you think would resist the loads of function better?a) An optimized implant-abutment connection or …..b) A stressed and perhaps deformed implant-abutment
connection that is already open due to misfit?I am sure your answer is a) – So make it your priority to
optimize this important connection! Today this can only be done by the process of intra-oral cementation.
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
39How do you correct an Implant-Abutment Misfit?
How do you repair a deformed or damaged Implant Platform?
Not Even A Remake Can Solve these BIG Problems!
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
40In Summary - When a Prosthesis is Cemented together with its Abutment Outside of the Mouth ...
It becomes a larger rigid and more complex unit that amplifies dimensional errors through extended length, and it is difficult to manipulate intra-orally.
The model on which the prosthesis is assembled, is not accurate enough. Thus the assembled prosthesis will push or pull the abutments off their intended base(s) and cause increase implant-abutment misfits when screwed into place inside the mouth.
When installing the prosthesis into the mouth, it can be very difficult to create ideal contacts with adjacent teeth. “How tight is too tight?” When the abutment screw is finally torqued into place, the prosthesis can tend to shift to accommodate the physical reality of the matching implant-abutment platforms. This can cause a change in contact pressure and cause additional stress and misfits of the implant-abutment connection. All of the above issues are BiG PROBLEMS that can and do cause damaging
misfits at the implant-abutment junction that is at the deep alveolar bone level!
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
41What else causes a misfit of screw retained prosthetics?
Adjacent structures (gingiva, alveolar bone, calculus, residual graft material) can get trapped between mating surfaces of abutments and dental implants.
This misfit is often very difficult to detect, especially with the larger pre-assembled units of screwed in prosthetics.
“Some dental implants with flat mating surfaces are probably worse than other abutment-implant designs at trapping tissues between them” – Dr. ES
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
42What about Screwed-in Prosthetics?
They do have Benefits too! Easy to remove and reinsert Avoid problems related to residual
subgingival cementThey can be used in short crown situations
We will now discuss these Relative Benefits ….
43What about the Benefits of Screwed-in
Prosthetics? 1. Easy to remove and re-insert
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
Many loose screws that require tightening are probably loose because of abutment prosthesis misfits and design related cantilevers.
A misfit may lead to a permanent deformation of the top of the retaining implants. This is not so good for a replacement prosthesis. This is a disaster.
Removal of most crowns and fixed bridges are for porcelain repair or open contacts. They are usually remakes anyway. Cutting them to engage an access screw is often not such a disaster.
Removal and re-insertion will probably not make a multi-unit prosthesis fit better. This is a disaster.
Multiple removals for hygiene is expensive and will probably damage the inside of the implant that engages the clamping screws. This may become a disaster.
Removal of a hybrid acrylic prosthesis for repair purposes or an acute problem is probably beneficial. Some procedures can also be done without removal.
44What about the Benefits of Screwed-in Prosthetics?
2. Avoid problems related to residual subgingival cement.
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
Yes, but do not forget, Screwed in Prosthetics are cemented (assembled) in the lab on inaccurate models. This causes additional inaccuracies and stress on the implant-abutment connection.
They are also more difficult to install because of their complexity and contacts with adjacent teeth.
Unlike the non-assembled abutment and prosthesis, the assemblies are difficult to sterilize prior to delivery, because the cement may degrade at high temperature. (see Part 2: all abutments, prosthetics and models are sterilized (not sanitized) prior to delivery to patient’s mouth)
What if Intra-oral Cementation Just Became Safer??
It’s a trade-off between the misfits of the Implant-Abutment Junction and Residual Subgingival Cement. Cement can often be accessed surgically or by endoscopic means and cleaned away.
What can you do about misfits??
45What about the Benefits of Screwed-in Prosthetics?
3. They can be used in short crown situations
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
Yes, the screw-in technique can be useful in these situations. As the adhesive properties of dental cements have improved, the definition of a short
crown also changes. Crowns are already cemented onto natural teeth without traditional mechanical retention. With the screwed-in prosthesis technique, the crowns are already cemented onto their abutments in the lab. They seem to hold.
The Reverse Margin™ Design can add 1 or 2 mm to crown length by lowering the base of the margin. The inflected part of the margin plus the additional central post length can effectively increase the retentive surface area.
Adhesive technology and other properties of cement have improved dramatically over the years. Margin designs have also improved.
Short crowns are not so much of a problem as before. However, it is always nice to have another tool in your toolbox to handle site-
specific problems.
© Dr. Em
il Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
46Intra-oral Cementation onto already installed Abutments allows
for the creation of an Optimal Passive Fit between the Prosthesis and its Retainers
The cement space (40 to 120 microns), created between the prosthesis and the retainer allows for
some tolerance in the system.This is very important!
What if Intra-oral Cementation Just Became Safer??
Screw Versus Cement For Implant Prosthesis Installation. Part 2: The Game Changer that tips the
balance in Favour Intra-oral Cementation. Emil L.A. Svoboda PhD, DDS,
Published to www.ReverseMargin.comUpdate January 2, 2016
41
© Dr. Emil Svoboda PhD, DDS 2015
Go to View the Very Exciting