References : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [2]
Korsch M, Walther W. Peri-implantitis associated with type of cement: a retrospective analysis of different types of cement and their clinical correlation to the peri-implant tissue. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(Suppl 2):e434–43.
Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Linkeviciene L, Maslova N, Puriene A. The influence of the cementation margin position on the amount of undetected cement. A prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(1):71–6.
Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Maslova N, Linkeviciene L, Peciuliene V, Linkevicius T. Clinical factors influencing removal of the cement excess in implant-supported restorations. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(4):771–8.
Thalji G, Bryington M, De Kok IJ, Cooper LF. Prosthodontic management of implant therapy. Dent Clin North Am. 2014;58(1):207–25.
Dittmer MP, Nensa M, Stiesch M, Kohorst P. Load-bearing capacity of screw-retained CAD/CAM-produced titanium implant frameworks (I-Bridge®2) before and after cyclic mechanical loading. J Appl Oral Sci. 2013;21(4):307–13.
Turkylmaz I, Patel NS, McGlumphy EA. Oral rehabilitation of a severely resorbed edentoulous maxilla with screw-retained hybrid denture using Cresco system: a case report. Eur J Dent. 2008;2(3):220–3.
Balshi SF, Wolfinger GJ, Balshi TJ. A protocol for immediate placement of a prefabricated screw-retained provisional prosthesis using computed tomography and guided surgery and incorporating planned alveoplasty. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011;31(1):49–55.
Meloni SM, De Riu G, Pisano M, Tullio A. Full arch restoration with computer-assisted implant surgery and immediate loading in edentulous ridges with dental fresh extraction sockets. One year results of 10 consecutively treated patients: guided implant surgery and extraction sockets. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2013;12(3):321–5.
Lee A, Okayasu K, Wang HL. Screw-versus cement-retained implant restorations: current concepts. Implant Dent. 2010;19(1):8–15.
Cicciù M, Beretta M, Risitano G, Maiorana C. Cemented-retained vs screw-retained implant restorations: an investigation on 1939 dental implants. Minerva Stomatol. 2008;57(4):167–79.
Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18(5):719–28.
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Background : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Methods : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [1]
- Methods : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [2]
- Methods : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [3]
- Results : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Discussion : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [3]
- References : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [1]
- References : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study [2]
- Table 1 ᅟ : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Table 2 Aesthetical Outcomes at T = 12 M (VAS Score) : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Table 3 Surface areas changes of access-hole filling. Unit: % : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Table 4 Disappearance of the overfilling. Unit: % : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant prostheses: 12-month in vivo study
- Fig. 1. Brush-dip technique : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 2. Occlusal contact point : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 3. a–e (Filling surface changes): a (ROG, T = 0). b (ROG, T = 1 M). c (ROG, T = 3 M). d (ROG, T = 6 M). e (ROG, T = 12 M) : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 4. Margin depth measurement localization (example: TRA, T = 12 M) : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 5. Depth and angle at the margin : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 6. Access-hole filling surface areas measurement, average : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant
- Fig. 7. a, b (The marginal discrepancy pattern for group CR and M4M). a Group CR (1: Ceramic surface, 2: CR surface) Units of the axis are in μm. b Group M4M (1: Ceramic surface, 2: M4M surface) Units of the axis are in μm : Comparison of access-hole filling materials for screw retained implant