The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Retrievable SCP (screw-cement prosthesis) implant-supported fixed partial dentures in a fully edentulous patient: a case report

완전 무치악 환자에서 나사-시멘트 보철물(SCP: screw-cement prosthesis)을 이용한 임플란트 보철 수복 증례

  • Kim, Joo-Hyeun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Yun, Bo-Hyeok (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jang, Jung-Eun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Huh, Jung-Bo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jeong, Chang-Mo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
  • 김주현 (부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 윤보혁 (부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 장정은 (부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 허중보 (부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 정창모 (부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2012.09.17
  • Accepted : 2012.10.13
  • Published : 2012.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Implant prostheses were classified into screw-retained prosthesis and cement-retained prosthesis by their method of retaining, and there is screw and cement retained implant prosthesis (SCRP) which has been made reflecting the strengths of these two. The advantages of the SCRP technique are easy retrievability and passive fit of implant prostheses. However, the occlusal screw holes of implant prostheses can be thought as a disadvantage with respect to esthetics and occlusion. Inappropriately positioned implants also limited the use of the SCRP technique. The present study is reporting about the case where nine implants (US II, OSSTEM, Seoul, Korea) were placed in maxilla and eight in mandible respectively in fully edentulous patients. Then, the cement-retained prosthesis was applied for the part in which the screw hole positioned improperly, and screw-retained prosthesis for properly positioned implants so that the combined screw-cement prosthesis has been produced where the satisfying result has shown in both function and esthetics. Three-year follow-up has been done for the patient.

임플란트 보철물은 유지방법에 따라 크게 나사 유지형 보철물(screw-retained prosthesis)과 시멘트 유지형 보철물(cement-retained prosthesis)로 나눌 수 있으며, 이들 장점을 고려하여 만든 나사-시멘트 유지형 보철물(SCRP: screw and cement retained implant prosthesis)이있다. 나사-시멘트 유지형 보철물은 임플란트 지대주와 상부 보철물 사이의 시멘트 층이 보철물 제작 과정에서 발생하는 여러 오차를 보상하여 수동적 적합을 얻을 수 있으며, 임상 및 기공 과정이 간단한 장점과 더불어 임플란트 보철의 유지 관리를 위해 필수적인 탈 부착(retrievability)이 가능하다. 본 증례에서는 완전 무치악 환자를 대상으로 상, 하악에 각각 9, 8개의 임플란트(US II, OSSTEM, Seoul, Korea)를 식립하고 나사 구멍이 순측으로 향하는 부위는 시멘트 유지형, 다른 부위는 나사-시멘트 유지형태를 사용하여 복합형태의 나사-시멘트 보철물(SCP: screw-cement prosthesis)을 제작하였으며 3년 간의 정기 검사에서 기능과 심미적으로 만족할 만한 결과를 얻어 이를 보고하고자 한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Misch CE. Screw-retained versus cement-retained implantsupported prostheses. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1995;7(9):15-8.
  2. Chee W, Felton DA, Johnson PF, Sullivan DY. Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: which is better? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:137-41.
  3. Misch CE. Contemporary implant dentistry. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Mosby Inc.; 1999. p. 549-93.
  4. Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77:28-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70203-8
  5. Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD: Cement retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003;18:719-28.
  6. Taylor TD. Prosthodontic problems and limitations associated with osseointegration. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:74-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70197-0
  7. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants: the Toronto study. Part III: Problems and complications encountered. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:185-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90177-E
  8. Breeding LC, Dixon DL, Bogacki MT, Tietge JD. Use of luting agents with an implant system: Part I. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:737-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90194-F
  9. Goodacre CJ, Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K. Clinical complications of osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:537-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70208-8
  10. Pauletto N, Lahiffe BJ, Walton JN. Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999;14:865-8.
  11. Aparicio C. A new method for achieving passive fit of an interim restoration supported by Branemark implants: a technical note. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1995;10:614-8.
  12. Preiskel HW, Tsolka P. The DIA anatomic abutment system and telescopic prostheses: A clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant 1997;12:628-33.
  13. Voitik AJ. The Kulzer abutment luting; Kal technique. A direct assembly framework method for osseointegrated implant prostheses. Implant Soc 1991;2:11-4.
  14. Rangert B, Jemt T, Jorneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:241-7.
  15. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR. Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:7-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70229-5
  16. Kallus T, Bessing C. Loose gold screws frequently occur in fullarch fixed prostheses supported by osseointegrated implants after 5 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994;9:169-78.
  17. Kim SG, Park JU, Jeong JH, Bae C, Bae TS, Chee W. In vitro evaluation of reverse torque value of abutment screw and marginal opening in a screw- and cement-retained implant fixed partial denture design. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:1061-7.
  18. Lindstrom H, Preiskel H. The implant-supported telescopic prosthesis: a biomechanical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2001;16:34-42.

Cited by

  1. The effect of heat to remove cement on implant titanium abutment and screw vol.56, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2018.56.3.179
  2. Biomechanical Effects of Retention Types (Cement and Screw-Cement Retained Prosthesis) in Implant Prosthesis vol.37, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.7736/jkspe.019.069