Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 20, 2026
An Improved Mechanical Testing Method to Assess Bone-implant Anchorage
Published on: February 10, 2014
Marginal Bone Loss around Cement-Retained versus Screw‑Retained Single Implant-Supported Crowns: A Systematic Review
Purpose:
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared marginal bone loss around cement-retained versus screw-retained single implant-supported crowns in partially edentulous patients.
Materials And Methods:
A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library to identify randomized controlled clinical trials published in English from 2015 onward. Eligible studies compared cement-retained and screw-retained single implant-supported crowns and reported marginal bone loss after a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment (Cochrane RoB 2), and certainty assessment (GRADE) were performed independently by two reviewers. Aggregate study-level data were synthesized using a random-effects meta-analysis with Hartung-Knapp adjustment.
Results:
Eight randomized clinical trials were included, comprising 154 cement-retained and 166 screw-retained restorations. The study-level random-effects meta-analysis showed no statistically significant overall difference in marginal bone loss between retention methods (MD = -0.17 mm; 95% CI, -0.36 to 0.03; P = 0.079). Substantial between-study heterogeneity was observed (I² = 86.2%; τ² = 0.043), and the 95% prediction interval ranged from -0.70 to 0.37 mm.
Conclusions:
The study-level random-effects meta-analysis did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in marginal bone loss between cement-retained and screw-retained restorations. Both retention methods can achieve satisfactory marginal bone stability across the available follow-up periods when appropriate clinical protocols are followed.
