Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

remove_circle_outline

Search Results (1)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = combined screw- and cement-retained prosthesis (CSCRP)

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
16 pages, 5806 KB  
Article
A Preliminary Randomized Trial on the Efficiency and Clinical Value of a Cementless Screw-Retained Implant Workflow in Single-Implant Restorations
by Sang-Yoon Park, Sung-Woon On, Tae-Yoon Park, Seoung-Won Cho, Sang-Min Yi, Soo-Hwan Byun, Hyun-Sook Han, Lee-Kyoung Kim and Byoung-Eun Yang
J. Funct. Biomater. 2025, 16(10), 378; https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb16100378 - 10 Oct 2025
Viewed by 1758
Abstract
This randomized controlled clinical trial compared a conventional combined screw- and cement-retained prosthesis (CSCRP) workflow (control group) with a fully digital cementless screw-retained prosthesis (CL-SRP) system (test group) for single posterior implant restorations. A total of 40 implants in 35 patients were allocated [...] Read more.
This randomized controlled clinical trial compared a conventional combined screw- and cement-retained prosthesis (CSCRP) workflow (control group) with a fully digital cementless screw-retained prosthesis (CL-SRP) system (test group) for single posterior implant restorations. A total of 40 implants in 35 patients were allocated to either workflow. Clinical procedure times, prosthetic accuracy, peri-implant soft tissue changes, and marginal bone loss (MBL) were assessed. The test group demonstrated significantly shorter total prosthetic time (p < 0.001) and impression-taking time (p < 0.001) compared with the control group. Prosthetic adjustment time (p = 0.211) and adjustment volume (p = 0.474) did not differ significantly. Gingival shape changes were likewise not statistically significant (p = 0.966). MBL was significantly lower in the test group (p < 0.05). From a prosthetic standpoint, both workflows yielded clinically acceptable outcomes; however, the digital CL-SRP approach improved procedural efficiency and early peri-implant bone preservation without compromising prosthetic quality. This trial had inherent limitations, including a short follow-up duration, a relatively small sample size, combined test conditions, and restriction to single posterior implants. Therefore, further long-term studies are warranted to confirm durability and broader clinical applicability. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Oral and Maxillofacial Implants)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop