(800) 854-7256 Main  |  (855) 289-9657 Case Pickup  |  New Customer  |  My Account NEW

Screw- vs. Cement-Retained Restorations: Clinical Trends and Considerations

Screw vs. Cement Retained Restorations: Trends and Considerations - Dental CE Course
Launch Course

Course Objectives (1 CE Credit)

Siamak Abai, DDS, MMedSc

Due to the functional and esthetic benefits of CAD/CAM-produced implant restorations, more clinicians are regularly prescribing digitally manufactured custom abutments and screw-retained crowns. The rise in popularity of both types of restorations represents a departure from stock abutments, which provide less control over the depth of the margins, contours, angulation and emergence profile of the final restoration.

The rate of growth for screw-retained crowns has outpaced that of custom abutments in recent years.

Dr. Siamak Abai explores this trend and discusses various factors that are important to consider when deciding between screw- or cement-retained restorations. Topics include:

  • The relative advantages of screw- and cement-retained restorations
  • A comparison of custom abutments and screw-retained crowns with stock abutments
  • Simplifying prosthetic maintenance and optimizing gingival esthetics
  • Limitations presented by the patient’s quantity and quality of bone
  • Optimal timing for implant therapy
  • Factors that can influence whether screw or cement retention is ideal for the individual patient
  • Probable factors driving the upsurge in prescriptions for screw-retained crowns in recent years


A growing number of clinicians are prescribing custom abutments and screw-retained crowns due to the superior final restorations enabled by patient-specific implant components. Though custom abutments remain the more popular choice, prescriptions for screw-retained crowns have exhibited significant, consistent growth in recent years. Whichever option is chosen, the transition away from stock abutments is improving the clinician’s ability to meet the esthetic desires of the patient.

CAUTION: When viewing the techniques, procedures, theories and materials that are presented, you must make your own decisions about specific treatment for patients and exercise personal professional judgment regarding the need for further clinical testing or education and your own clinical expertise before trying to implement new procedures.


  1. Borges T, Lima T, Carvalho A, Carvalho V. Clinical outcome of inter-proximal papilla between a tooth and a single implant treated with CAD/CAM abutments: a cross-sectional study. J Oral Maxillofac Res. 2012 Oct 1;3(3):e4.
  2. Wittneben JG, Millen C, Brägger U. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions – a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29 Suppl:84-98.
  3. Sherif S, Susarla HK, Kapos T, Munoz D, Chang BM, Wright RF. A systematic review of screw- versus cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations. J Prosthodont. 2014 Jan;23(1):1-9.
  4. Korsch M, Robra BP, Walther W. Cement-associated signs of inflammation: retrospective analysis of the effect of excess cement on peri-implant tissue. Int J Prosthodont. 2015 Jan-Feb;28(1):11-8.
  5. Schittenhelm B, Karl M, Graef F, Heckmann S, Taylor T. Effect of various fixation parameters on strain development of screw- and cement-retained implant-supported restorations. Quintessence Int. 2013;44(6):409-16.
  6. Clelland NL, Yilmaz B, Seidt JD. Three-dimensional image correlation analyses for strains generated by cement and screw-retained implant prostheses. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2013 Apr;15(2):271-82.
  7. Tomlin EM, Nelson SJ, Rossmann JA. Ridge preservation for implant therapy: a review of the literature. Open Dent J. 2014 May 16;8:66-76.
  8. Tallgren A. The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture wearers: a mixed-longitudinal study covering 25 years. 1972. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 May;89(5):427-35.
  9. Carlsson GE, Bergman B, Hedegård B. Changes in contour of the maxillary alveolar process under immediate dentures. A longitudinal clinical and x-ray cephalometric study covering 5 years. Acta Odontol Scand. 1967 Jun;25(1):45-75.
Prev Course
Next Course

Subscribing Has Its Perks!

Offers on products you may already use
Introductory offers on new products
Educational materials