Introduction

By Ricardo Mitrani, D.D.S., M.S.D.

For many years now, there has been controversy among clinicians regarding what works best when dealing with dental implant retention for fixed restorations: screw retention versus cement retention.

Both techniques offer very clear advantages and some shortcomings and, more often than not, the decision process becomes an issue of personal preference.

Having said this, contemporary restorative dentists have to be well acquainted with both techniques since there is room for both in the practice — whether that’s with implant-supported restorations that the restoring team is doing for the first time (on recently integrated implants) or in those cases in which the restoration needs to be redone (due to issues like fractured ceramics, inadequate esthetics and ill-fitting margins).

Moreover, there are certain situations in which the intended restoration is a screw-retained implant-supported crown and is prescribed as such to the surgeon, but in lieu of an inadequate residual ridge, the implant has to be angled toward the facial aspect of the restoration. This would make screw retention an invalid option, so a very valid Plan B – cement retention – should be considered.

This e-book compilation of Spear faculty articles offers practical ways of dealing with both types of restorations in your practice. We felt that showcasing the similarity of the opinions presented by various restorative dentists helps to establish the validity of the techniques and ideas presented.

I know that this e-book will give you a better understanding of the fundamental principles behind both types of restorations and provide clinically relevant tips that will enable you to deal with both implant retention options in a more predictable and consistent manner.

This e-book will give you a better understanding of the fundamental principles behind both types of restorations and provide clinically relevant tips

5