Similar Risk of Peri-Implant Diseases in Cemented and Screw-Retained Prostheses
A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the incidence of peri-implant diseases in patients who received implant-supported prostheses. The study aimed to determine whether cemented prostheses pose a higher risk than screw-retained ones, given the contrasting evidence presented in previous studies.
HCN Medical Memo
This study’s findings suggest that both cemented and screw-retained prostheses present a similar risk for peri-implant diseases. This information could impact dental practitioners’ decision-making process when choosing between these two types of prostheses. It is crucial to consider this evidence within the broader context of oral healthcare and patient-specific factors.
Purpose, Material, and Methods
- Problem: The association of cemented prostheses with peri-implant disease due to cement remnants acting as a bacterial reservoir has been a topic of debate.
- Question: The study aimed to answer: “Is the incidence of peri-implant diseases higher in cemented implant-supported prostheses than in screw-retained ones?”
- Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using MEDLINE-PubMed, SCOPUS, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science databases. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the incidence of peri-implant disease in both types of prostheses were included.
According to the American Academy of Implant Dentistry, 3 million people in the United States have implants, a number that is growing by 500,000 annually.
- A total of 4,455 articles were initially identified, with 6 RCTs included for analysis.
- The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between cement- and screw-retained prostheses for the risk of peri-implant mucositis (RR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.42-4.38, P=.61).
- Similarly, no significant difference was observed for the incidence of peri-implantitis (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.23-4.31, P=1.00).
More on Implant Dentistry