The site of the Media Sphera Publishers contains materials intended solely for healthcare professionals.
By closing this message, you confirm that you are a certified medical professional or a student of a medical educational institution.

Login
EN
+7 (495) 482-4118
+7 (495) 482-0604
+8 800 250-18-12
  • (toll-free number for subscriptions)
    Mon-Fri from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.

  • © 1998-2025
+7 (495) 482-43-29
EN
All journals
Journal
Year
Year
Search result: 0

Ebrakhim M.

Tver State Medical University

Strelnikov V.N.

Tver State Medical University

Moiseev D.A.

FSAEI HE N.I. Pirogov RNRMU of MOH of Russia

Salloum A.

Tver State Medical University

Pulatova R.S.

Bukhara State medical instituti after Abu Ali Ibn Sino

Vokhidov U.G.

Bukhara State medical instituti after Abu Ali Ibn Sino

Zhusupbekov S.Zh.

FSAEI HE N.I. Pirogov RNRMU of MOH of Russia

Analysis of complications of dental treatment using orthopedic structures with different types of fixation on dental implants

Authors:

Ebrakhim M., Strelnikov V.N., Moiseev D.A., Salloum A., Pulatova R.S., Vokhidov U.G., Zhusupbekov S.Zh.

More about the authors

Journal: Russian Journal of Stomatology. 2025;18(1): 23‑29

DOI: 10.17116/rosstomat20251801123

Views: 427

Downloaded: 25

Download PDF (RU)
Contact the author
Table of contents

ANALYSIS OF COMPLICATIONS OF DENTAL TREATMENT USING ORTHOPEDIC STRUCTURES WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF FIXATION ON DENTAL IMPLANTS
ANALYSIS OF COMPLICATIONS OF DENTAL TREATMENT USING ORTHOPEDIC STRUCTURES WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF FIXATION ON DENTAL IMPLANTS

To cite this article:

Ebrakhim M, Strelnikov VN, Moiseev DA, Salloum A, Pulatova RS, Vokhidov UG, Zhusupbekov SZh. Analysis of complications of dental treatment using orthopedic structures with different types of fixation on dental implants. Russian Journal of Stomatology. 2025;18(1):23‑29. (In Russ.)
https://doi.org/10.17116/rosstomat20251801123

Подписка 2025-2 (Russian Journal of Stomatology)
 
МСФ на ЯМ
Close metadata
Recommended articles:
Features of the oral microbiota in patients with type II diabetes in the background of dental implantation. Russian Journal of Stomatology. 2024;(2):21-26
Repa­rative pote­ntial of bone tissue and asso­ciated influencing factors. Stomatology. 2024;(2):41-49
Wave­front characteristics in amblyopia of different etiologies in children. Russian Annals of Ophthalmology. 2024;(2):48-53
Mini­mally inva­sive inte­rventions for complications asso­ciated with intra-abdominal calculi after lapa­roscopic cholecystectomy. Piro­gov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2024;(5):14-20
The resu­lts of clinical application of the mesh with anti-adhesive fluoropolymer coating in lapa­roscopic intraperitoneal repair of primary ventral hernia. Piro­gov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2024;(5):86-94
Reco­nstructive plastic surgery in combined treatment of breast cancer: predictive risk factors of complications and reco­nstruction failure. P.A. Herzen Journal of Onco­logy. 2024;(3):13-19
Asse­ssment of the condition of organs and tissues of the oral cavity in people with dentition defe­cts against the background of meta­bolic syndrome. Stomatology. 2024;(3):31-38
Teeth auto­transplantation as an alte­rnative to dental implantation. Stomatology. 2024;(3):59-66
Surgical treatment of traumatic arte­riovenous fistulas of extremities. Piro­gov Russian Journal of Surgery. 2024;(7):92-102
Role of acute kidney injury in the treatment of acute lower limb ischemia. Russian Journal of Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery. 2024;(4):457-462

Dental treatment using dental implants with partial and complete absence of teeth is becoming a priority among all methods of orthopedic dental treatment. One of the urgent issues is the justification of the choice of fixation of prostheses on implants. To date, screw, cement and combined fixation of prosthetic structures based on dental implants are distinguished. Understanding the biomechanical properties, manufacturing features, and fixation of the prosthesis will help the clinician choose the ideal design for each clinical case, as well as improve the final aesthetic and functional results. Currently, the most important task of practical dentistry is the prevention of complications associated with the peculiarities of prosthetics on dental implants.

THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY:

To analyze the complications of dental treatment using non-removable orthopedic structures supported by dental implants using various methods of fixation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The article presents the results of a three–year clinical study of 136 dental implants with different types of fixation of orthopedic structures: 46 with cement fixation, 52 with screw fixation and 38 with combined fixation. A dental examination of 50 patients was performed with the recording of clinical and radiological parameters. Statistical differences between the groups were determined using Pearson’s chi-square test (at p<0.05). Conclusion. The results of this study make it possible to identify structures with a combined type of fixation as a priority in prosthetics on dental implants due to their excellent aesthetics, occlusion, and ease of manufacture, reduction of the patient’s stay in the dental chair and a low level of all types of complications.

Keywords:

dental implantation
complications
fixation
combined fixation
periimplantitis

Authors:

Ebrakhim M.

Tver State Medical University

Strelnikov V.N.

Tver State Medical University

Moiseev D.A.

FSAEI HE N.I. Pirogov RNRMU of MOH of Russia

Salloum A.

Tver State Medical University

Pulatova R.S.

Bukhara State medical instituti after Abu Ali Ibn Sino

Vokhidov U.G.

Bukhara State medical instituti after Abu Ali Ibn Sino

Zhusupbekov S.Zh.

FSAEI HE N.I. Pirogov RNRMU of MOH of Russia

Received:

16.01.2025

Accepted:

27.01.2025

List of references:

  1. Felker EV, Yachmeneva LA, Evdokimova E.I. Prevalence and localization of dentition defects among the population of Kursk//International Journal of Experimental Education. 2015;5(1):42. (In Russ.). https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_23494261_85868508.pdf
  2. Felker EV, Vinokur AV, Misnik Yu.V. The prevalence of Bruxism among the population of the Kursk region//International Journal of Experimental Education. 2015; 5(1):41-42. (In Russ.). https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_23494260_80969979.pdf
  3. Chávez EM, Wong LM, Subar P, et al. Dental Care for Geriatric and Special Needs Populations // Dent Clin North Am. 2018;62(2):245-267.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2017.11.005
  4. Canallatos JE, Hobbs GR, Bryington MS, Dye BD. The effect of implant prosthesis complications on patient satisfaction // J. Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123(2):269-276. PMID: 31202555  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.11.015
  5. Ma S, Fenton A. Screw-versus cement-retained implant prostheses: a systematic review of prosthodontic maintenance and complications // Int J Prosthodont. 2015;28(2):127-45. PMID: 25822297. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.3947
  6. Wittneben JG, Joda T, Weber HP, Brägger U. Screw retained vs. cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis // Periodontol 2000. 2017; 73(1):141-151. PMID: 28000276. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12168
  7. Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Needleman I, Salvi GE, Pjetursson BE. Consensus statements and clinical recommendations for prevention and management of biologic and technical implant complications // Int J. Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:346-350.  https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2013.g5
  8. Ragauskaitė A, Žekonis G, Žilinskas J, et al. The comparison of cement- and screw-retained crowns from technical and biological points of view // Stomatologija. 2017;19(2):44-50. PMID: 29243683.
  9. Gaddale R, Mishra SK, Chowdhary R. Complications of screw- and cement-retained implant-supported full-arch restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis // Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2020;13(1):11-40. PMID: 32186285.
  10. Palma-Carrió C, Macconi A, Rubert-Aparici A, et al. Prosthetic Complications of Single Screw-Retained Implant-Supported Metal-Ceramic Fixed Prostheses: A Retrospective Observational Study // Int J Dent. 2024;2024: 9242928. PMID: 39165325; PMCID: PMC11335423. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/9242928
  11. Heo YK, Lim YJ. A Newly Designed Screw- and Cement-Retained Prosthesis and Its Abutments // Int J Prosthodont. 2015;28(6):612-4. PMID: 26523721. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4236
  12. AlHelal A, Kattadiyil MT, Clark JL, AlBader B. Diagnostic classification and design considerations for implant-supported fixed partial dentures and screw access channel: The ABC/PBC and SAC Classifications // Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30:490-5.  https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5245
  13. Rajput M, Kohli AS, Abdul HN, et al. Evaluation of Prosthodontic Complications in Screw-Retained and Cement-Retained Crowns in Dental Implants: An Original Research // J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024;16(Suppl1):S609-S612. PMID: 38595416; PMCID: PMC11001125  https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_890_23
  14. Hamed MT, Abdullah Mously H, Khalid Alamoudi S, et al. A Systematic Review of Screw versus Cement-Retained Fixed Implant Supported Reconstructions // Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2020;12:9-16.  https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S231070
  15. Korsch M, Walther W, Bartols A. Cement-associated peri-implant mucositis. A 1-year follow-up after excess cement removal on the peri-implant tissue of dental implants // Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19(3):523-529. PMID: 28090743. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12470
  16. Makke A, Homsi A, Guzaiz M. et al. Survey of screw-retained versus cement-retained implant restorations in Saudi Arabia // Int J Dent. 2017; 2017:1-5.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5478371.
  17. Staubli N, Walter C, Schmidt J.C, et al. Excess cement and the risk of peri-implant disease — a systematic review // Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;2 8(10):1278-1290. PMID: 27647536. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12954
  18. Hamed MT, Abdullah Mously H, Khalid Alamoudi S, et al. A Systematic Review of Screw versus Cement-Retained Fixed Implant Supported Reconstructions // Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2020;12:9-16.  https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S231070
  19. da Silva EM, de Sá Rodrigues CU, Dias DA, et al. Effect of toothbrushing-mouthrinse-cycling on surface roughness and topography of nanofilled, microfilled, and microhybrid resin composites // Oper Dent. 2014;39(5): 521-9. PMID: 24304341. https://doi.org/10.2341/13-199-L
  20. Da Silva EM, De Sá Rodrigues CUF, Dias DA, et al. Effect of toothbrushing-mouthrinse-cycling on surface roughness and topography of nanofilled, microfilled, and microhybrid resin composites // Operative Dentistry. 2014; 39(5):521-529.  https://doi.org/10.2341/13-199-L
  21. Santiago JF Jr, Batista VE, Verri FR, et al. Platform-switching implants and bone preservation: a systematic review and meta-analysis // Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;45(3):332-45. PMID: 26723496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2015.11.009
  22. Griggs JA. Dental Implants // Dent Clin North Am. 2017;61(4):857-871. PMID: 28886772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2017.06.007
  23. Korsch M, Robra BP, Walther W. Predictors of excess cement and tissue response to fixed implant-supported dentures after cementation // Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17 Suppl 1:e45-53. PMID: 23879821. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12122
  24. Lemos CA, de Souza Batista VE, Almeida DA, et al. Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis // J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115(4):419-27. PMID:26589441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.08.026
  25. Burbano M, Wilson TG Jr, Valderrama P, et al. Characterization of Cement Particles Found in Peri-implantitis-Affected Human Biopsy Specimens // Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(5):1168-73. PMID: 26394356. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4074.
  26. Ramer N, Wadhwani C, Kim A, Hershman D. Histologic findings within peri-implant soft tissue in failed implants secondary to excess cement: report of two cases and review of literature // N Y State Dent J 2014;80:43-6. PMID: 24851393 
  27. Malpartida-Carrillo V, Tinedo-López PL, Ortiz-Culca F, et al. Fracture Resistance of Cement-retained, Screw-retained, and Combined Cement- and Screw-retained Metal-ceramic Implant-supported Molar Restorations // J Contemp Dent Pract. 2020;21(8):868-873. PMID: 33568607.
  28. Rajan M, Gunaseelan R. Fabrication of a cement- and screw-retained implant prosthesis // J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92(6):578-80. PMID: 15583566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.09.009.
  29. Nissan J, Snir D, Rosner O, et al. Reliability of retrievable cemented implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(5):587-91. PMID: 26774322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.10.013.
  30. Proussaefs P, AlHelal A. The combination prosthesis: A digitally designed retrievable cement- and screw-retained implant-supported prosthesis // J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(4):535-539. PMID: 28927920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.019.
  31. Al-Fahd AA, Alsourori A, Al-Qutabi AY, et al. Impact of screw retained versus cement retained implant-supported prosthesis on peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis // Int Dental Med J Adv Res. 2015;1:1-6.  https://doi.org/10.15713/ins.idmjar.32
  32. Ebrakhim M, Moiseev DA, Strelnikov VN, et al. Assessment of risk factors and causes of inflammatory changes in the oral mucosa and bone tissue of the jaws surrounding dental implants. Russian Journal of Operative Surgery and Clinical Anatomy. 2024;8(3):48-57. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/operhirurg2024803148
  33. Ferreiroa A, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Pradíes G, et al. Cemented and screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth restorations in the molar mandibular region: A retrospective comparison study after an observation period of 1 to 4 years // J Clin Exp Dent. 2015;7(1):e89-94. PMID: 25810850; PMCID: PMC4368026. https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.51708
  34. Sherif S, Susarla HK, Kapos T, et al. A systematic review of screw- versus cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations // J Prosthodont. 2014; 23(1):1-9 PMID:24382004. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12128
  35. Moiseev DA, Kopetsky IS, Guseva OYu, et al. Analysis of the causes and features of the course of gum recession in various bclinical conditions//Clinical Dentistry (Russia). 2024;27(3):66-77. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.37988/1811-153X_2024_3_66
  36. Millen C, Brägger U, Wittneben JG. Influence of prosthesis type and retention mechanism on complications with fixed implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review applying multivariate analyses // Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(1):110-24. PMID: 25615920. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3607.
  37. Silva GC, Cornacchia TM, de Magalhães CS, et al. Biomechanical evaluation of screw- and cement-retained implant-supported prostheses: a nonlinear finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112: 1479-88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.06.010

Close metadata

Contact the author
Email
Message
The publishing house "Media Sphere" does not provide treatment services, does not give recommendations on contacting medical institutions and specific specialists, on the prescription of medicines and dietary supplements.

Email Confirmation

An email was sent to test@gmail.com with a confirmation link. Follow the link from the letter to complete the registration on the site.

Email Confirmation

Contact us
If you have any questions, complaints or suggestions, please use this feedback form.
Email
Message
The publishing house "Media Sphere" does not provide treatment services, does not give recommendations on contacting medical institutions and specific specialists, on the prescription of medicines and dietary supplements.
Submit Application

You can become an author of one of our magazines, send a request and we will consider it in during the day.

Name
Phone
E-mail
Message
Login
Registration
E-mail
Password
Forgot Password?

Log in to the site using your account in one of the services

Password recovery
E-mail
Login
Register

We use cооkies to improve the performance of the site. By staying on our site, you agree to the terms of use of cооkies. To view our Privacy and Cookie Policy, please. click here.