A more recent argument in favour of screw retention is to eliminate the potential complications associated with excess residual cement – often difficult to completely remove with a cement retained crown. One perceived disadvantage to the screw retained option has been the concern over the visibility of the screw access channel. However, with recently improved aesthetic materials, the ability to cover the access hole has become a non-issue.

On the other hand, choosing cement retained as an restorative option provides the assurance of maximum aesthetics. The concern with cement retention is two fold. The first being the restoration is cemented to an abutment that is screw retained. If the abutment screw becomes loose then the final restoration cannot be removed without destroying the crown. This results in a remake and increased restorative costs.

The second concern with cement retained is that the cementable junction between the crown and abutment potentially acts as a medium for colonization of bacteria. This is due to the excess cement that may not be fully removed and it can jeopardize the osseointegration of the implant. This will ultimately result in implant failure.

When deciding between screw retained and cement retained implants, there are benefits and different techniques to using each method, often related to location and position of the implant. The choice of method is usually based on the clinician’s preference and the position of the implant.

For more information about screw retained and cement retained implant crowns, contact Bayshore Dental Studio located in sunny Tampa, Florida. With over two decades of experience, Bayshore has been ranked among the top 7% of nationwide dental laboratories by Lab Management Today. Our technical support team is here to help and comprised of individuals who have a vast reserve of dental laboratory and clinical experience.