Comparison of Aesthetic, Mechanical Outcome, and Bone Loss in Angulated Screw Channels (ASCs) and Cement-Retained Implant-Supported Prosthesis: A Case-Control Study

Abstract

Angulated-screw channels (ASCs) allow the clinician to employ screw-retained restorations in almost all cases, as the access hole can be moved away from the vestibular portion of the crown, where it would jeopardize the final esthetic result. The objective of this study was to compare screw-retained restorations employing ASCs with restorations cemented on angled abutments. In this study, 30 subjects, equally divided into two groups: group 1 (cemented restorations on angulated abutments) and group 2 (screw-retained restorations adopting ASCs), were treated and retrospectively compared after 2 years using the pink esthetic score (PES) and the white esthetic score (WES). All restorations were in use at the last follow-up, with a survival rate of 100%. Three mechanical complications were observed (2 chippings and 1 crown came loose), with a success rate of 93% in group 1 and 87% in group 2 (p > 0.05). No statistically significant differences were reported regarding the esthetic outcome; the marginal bone loss (MBL) showed better results for the screw-retained restorations, both at the distal aspect (group 1 = 0.98 mm ± 0.16; group 2 = 0.45 mm ± 0.06; p = 0.006) and at the mesial aspect (group 1 = 1.04 ± 0.27; group 2 = 0.45 ± 0.005; p < 0.001). From an esthetical perspective, screw-retained restorations with ASCs and cemented restorations on angulated abutments are both effective means of restoring implants; both have excellent esthetic outcomes, but screw-retained restorations have reduced bone loss when compared to cemented ones but are more prone to mechanical complications. Still, our results must be cautiously observed given the reduced dimension of our sample. Larger studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Keywords

• dental implant-abutment design
• dental prosthesis design
• dental implants