Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Clinical Report| Volume 120, ISSUE 6, P791-795, December 2018

Download started.


Interim restoration using dynamic abutments to re-treat a single-implant crown with a labial angulation: A clinical report


      The cause of some peri-implant problems may be primarily attributable to the design of the prosthesis. A screw-retained interim implant may be advisable for reversibility and to avoid peri-implant cement, although screw retention may be difficult for maxillary anterior implants with a labial angulation. In the treatment described, a interim screw-retained crown was attached to a dynamic abutment with a lingual screw access hole to obtain a correctly fitting restoration.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Michalakis K.
        • Hirayama H.
        • Garefis P.
        Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003; 18: 719-728
        • Vigolo P.
        • Givani A.
        • Majzoub Z.
        • Cordioli G.
        Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 4-year prospective clinical study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19: 260-265
        • Chee W.
        • Jivraj S.
        Screw versus cemented implant supported restorations.
        Br Dent J. 2006; 201: 501-507
        • Shadid R.
        • Sadaqa N.
        A comparison between screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. A literature review.
        J Oral Implantol. 2012; 38: 298-307
        • Gotfredsen K.
        • Wiskott A.
        Consensus report: reconstructions on implants. The third EAO consensus conference.
        Clin Oral Implants. 2012; 23: 238-241
        • Martin W.
        • Pollini A.
        • Morton D.
        The influence of restorative procedures on esthetic outcomes in implant dentistry: a systematic review.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 142-154
        • Vigolo P.
        • Mutinelli S.
        • Givani A.
        • Stellini E.
        Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 10-year randomised controlled trial.
        Eur J Oral Implantol. 2012; 5: 355-364
        • Scur R.
        • Jefferson P.
        • Jefferson S.
        Cement-retained versus screw-retained dental prostheses: Literature review.
        Dental Press Implantol. 2013; 7: 39-48
        • Sherif S.
        • Susarla H.K.
        • Kapos T.
        • Muñoz D.
        • Chang B.M.
        • Wright R.F.
        A systematic review of screw- versus cement-retained implant-supported fixed restorations.
        J Prosthodont. 2014; 23: 1-9
        • Wittneben J.
        • Joda T.
        • Weber H.P.
        • Bragger U.
        Screw retained vs. cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis.
        Periodontol 2000. 2017; 73: 141-151
        • Korsch M.
        • Obst U.
        • Walter W.
        Cement-associated peri-implantitis: a retrospective clinical observational study of fixed implant-supported restorations using a methacrylate cement.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25: 797-802
        • Korsch M.
        • Robra B.P.
        • Walther W.
        Cement-associated signs of inflammation: retrospective analysis of the effect of excess cement on peri-implant tissue.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2015; 28: 11-18
        • Pauletto N.
        • Lahiffe B.J.
        • Walton J.N.
        Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: a clinical report.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14: 865-868
        • Wadhwani C.
        • Rapoport D.
        • La Rosa S.
        • Hess T.
        • Kretschmar S.
        Radiographic detection and characteristic patterns of residual excess cement associated with cement-retained implant restorations: a clinical report.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2012; 107: 151-157
        • Wilson T.J.
        The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study.
        J Periodontol. 2009; 80: 1388-1392
        • Linkevicius T.
        • Vindasiute E.
        • Puisys A.
        • Peciuliene V.
        The influence of margin location on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cement-retained implant restorations.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22: 1379-1384
        • 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: 71-76
        • 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: 771-778
        • Wadhwani C.
        • Pineyro A.
        Technique for controlling the cement for an implant crown.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 102: 57-58
        • Santosa R.E.
        • Martin W.
        • Morton D.
        Effects of a cementing technique in addition to luting agent on the uniaxial retention force of a single-tooth implant-supported restoration: an in vitro study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010; 25: 1145-1152
        • Chee W.W.
        • Duncan J.
        • Afshar M.
        • Moshaverinia A.
        Evaluation of the amount of excess cement around the margins of cement-retained dental implant restorations: the effect of the cement application method.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 216-221
        • Canullo L.
        • Coccheto
        • Marinotti F.
        • Oltra D.P.
        • Diago M.P.
        • Loi I.
        Clinical evaluation of an improved cementation technique for implant-supported restorations: a randomized controlled trial.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 1492-1499
        • Agar J.R.
        • Cameron S.M.
        • Hughbanks J.C.
        • Parker M.H.
        Cement removal from restorations luted to titanium abutments with simulated subgingival margins.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 78: 43-47
        • Daher T.
        • Morgano S.M.
        The use of digital photographs to locate implant abutment screws for implant-supported cement retained restorations.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2008; 100: 238-239
        • Figueras-Alvarez O.
        • Cano-Batalla J.
        An alternative method for registering the abutment screw position of cement-retained implant restorations.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 1304-1305
        • Figueras-Alvarez O.
        • Cedeño R.
        • Cano-Batalla J.
        • Cabratosa-Termes J.
        A method for registering the abutment screw position of cement-retained implant restorations.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2010; 104: 60-62
        • Park J.I.
        • Yoon T.-H.
        A three-dimensional image-superimposition CAD/CAM technique to record the position and angulation of the implant abutment screw access channel.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 57-60
        • Patil P.G.
        A technique for repairing a loosening abutment screw for a cement-retained implant prosthesis.
        J Prosthodont. 2011; 20: 652-655
        • Wadhwani C.
        • Chung K.H.
        Simple device for locating the abutment screw position of a cement-retained implant restoration.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 272-274
        • Chee W.
        • Felton D.A.
        • Johnson P.F.
        • Sullivan D.Y.
        Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: which is better?.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999; 14: 137-141
        • Berroeta E.
        • Zabalegui I.
        • Donovan T.
        • Chee W.
        Dynamic abutment: a method of redirecting screw access for implant-supported restorations: technical details and a clinical report.
        J Prosthetic Dent. 2015; 113: 516-519
        • Canullo L.
        • Tallarico M.
        • Chu S.
        • Peñarrocha D.
        • Özcan M.
        • Pesce P.
        Cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization protocols employed for customized implant abutments: an international survey of 100 universities worldwide.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017; 32: 774-778
        • Kozlovsky A.
        • Artzi Z.
        • Moses O.
        • Kamin-Belsky N.
        • Greenstein R.B.
        Interaction of chlorhexidine with smooth and rough types of titanium surfaces.
        J Periodontol. 2006; 77: 1194-1200
        • Lin K.C.
        • Wadhwani C.P.
        • Sharma A.
        • Finzen F.
        A radiograph positioning technique to evaluate prosthetic misfit and bone loss around implants.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 111: 163-165
        • Lin K.C.
        • Wadhwani C.P.
        • Cheng J.
        • Sharma A.
        • Finzen F.
        Assessing fit at the implant-abutment junction with a radiographic device that does not require access to the implant body.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 817-823