Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 13, 2026
Effects of Mechanical Methods Used in Peri-implantitis Treatment on Implant Surface Decontamination and Roughness
Published on: March 14, 2025
Assessment of Prosthodontic Complications in Screw-Retained and Cement-Retained Crowns in Dental Implants: An
Ghazala Khurshid1, Moka Leela Rani2, Chirag R Vaniya3
1Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, Consultant at Lake View Hospital, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India.
Background:
The long-term success of implant-supported prostheses relies not only on osseointegration but also on the prevention of prosthodontic complications. Two common retention methods-screw-retained and cement-retained crowns-exhibit distinct clinical advantages and potential drawbacks.
Materials And Methods:
A prospective observational study was conducted on 100 patients receiving implant-supported single crowns-50 with screw-retained and 50 with cement-retained designs. All patients were followed up for 12 months to evaluate complications, such as screw loosening, crown fracture, marginal gap, cement washout, peri-implantitis, and prosthesis decementation. Data were analyzed using Chi-square and t-tests (P < 0.05 considered significant).
Results:
Screw loosening was more prevalent in screw-retained crowns (18%) compared to cement-retained (4%) (P = 0.032). Marginal discrepancies and cement washout were more common in the cement-retained group (marginal gap: 20%, cement washout: 14%) than in screw-retained (8%, 2%, respectively) (P < 0.05). Peri-implantitis was higher in cement-retained crowns (10%) versus screw-retained (4%) (P = 0.146, not significant). No significant difference was found in crown fractures (screw-retained: 4%, cement-retained: 6%, P = 0.712).
Conclusion:
Both systems have distinct complication profiles. Screw-retained crowns showed higher mechanical issues, while cement-retained crowns demonstrated increased biological complications. Appropriate case selection and clinical protocols can minimize these issues.
