Clinical Report| Volume 123, ISSUE 3, P373-378, March 2020

Download started.


Fabricating a screw-retained, complete arch, fixed implant prosthesis using selective metal laser sintering: A clinical report

  • Karnik Shah
    Corresponding author: Dr Karnik Shah, 1700 E 4th Street, Apt 1336, Austin, TX 78702
    Private practice, Austin, Texas

    Former Resident, Advanced Prosthodontics Program, Division of Restorative Sciences and Prosthodontics, The Ohio State University College of Dentistry, Columbus, Ohio
    Search for articles by this author
  • Damian J. Lee
    Director and Assistant Professor, Advanced Prosthodontics Program, Division of Restorative Sciences and Prosthodontics, The Ohio State University College of Dentistry, Columbus, Ohio
    Search for articles by this author


      In contemporary prosthodontic practice, implant-supported therapy has consistently resulted in high success rates, with satisfactory and predictable outcomes for completely edentulous patients. Of the several options, complete-arch, fixed screw-retained solutions are generally considered to be the preferred treatment solution. Screw retention offers advantages such as predictable retrievability and potentially easy prosthodontic maintenance, as well as excess cement not being a concern. However, implant mispositioning and malalignment may often necessitate the use of cement-retained prostheses. This clinical report describes a method of fabricating a complete-arch, implant screw-retained, double framework metal-ceramic prosthesis, despite the unfavorable implant positioning, by using selective direct metal laser sintering technology.
      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


        • Jemt T.
        • Lekholm U.
        • Adell R.
        Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous patients: A preliminary study on 876 consecutively placed fixtures.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989; 4: 211-217
        • Shadid R.
        • Sadaqa N.
        A comparison between screw-and cement-retained implant prostheses. A literature review.
        J Oral Implantol. 2012; 38: 298-307
        • Lemos C.A.
        • de Souza Batista V.E.
        • de Faria Almeida D.A.
        • Júnior J.F.
        • Verri F.R.
        • Pellizzer E.P.
        Evaluation of cement-retained versus screw-retained implant-supported restorations for marginal bone loss: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 419-427
        • Pennington J.
        • Parker S.
        Improving quality of life using removable and fixed implant prostheses.
        Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2012; 33: 268-274
        • Goodacre C.
        • Goodacre B.
        Fixed vs removable complete arch implant prostheses: A literature review of prosthodontic outcomes.
        Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 1: 13-34
        • Selim K.
        • Ali S.
        • Reda A.
        Implant supported fixed restorations versus implant supported removable overdentures: a systematic review.
        Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2016; 4: 726-732
        • Lopes A.
        • Malo P.
        • de Araujo Nobre M.
        • Sanchez-Fernandez E.
        The NobelGuide All-on-4 treatment concept for rehabilitation of edentulous jaws: a prospective report on medium– and long–term outcomes.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 2: 406-416
        • Salenbauch N.M.
        • Langner J.
        New ways of designing superstructures for fixed implant-supported prostheses.
        Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1998; 18: 604-612
        • Hess T.A.
        Choosing between fixed and removable prostheses.
        Decisions in Dentistry. 2017; 3: 29-31
        • Chaar M.S.
        • Att W.
        • Strub J.R.
        Prosthetic outcome of cement-retained implant-supported fixed dental restorations: a systematic review.
        J Oral Rehabil. 2011; 38: 697-711
        • Ma S.
        • Fenton A.
        Screw-versus cement-retained implant prostheses: a systematic review of prosthodontic maintenance and complications.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2015; 28: 127-145
        • Egilmez F.
        • Ergun G.
        • Cekic-Nagas I.
        • Bozkaya S.
        Implant-supported hybrid prosthesis: Conventional treatment method for borderline cases.
        Eur J Dent. 2015; 9: 442-448
        • Hebel K.S.
        • Gajjar R.C.
        Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: Achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 77: 28-35
        • Sailer I.
        • Mühlemann S.
        • Zwahlen M.
        • Hämmerle C.H.
        • Schneider D.
        Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23: 163-201
        • Korsch M.
        • Walther W.
        Retrospective analysis of loosening of cement-retained vs screw-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions.
        Quintessence Int. 2015; 46: 583-589
        • Korsch M.
        • Robra B.P.
        • Walther W.
        Predictors of excess cement and tissue response to fixed implant-supported dentures after cementation.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 17: 45-53
        • Busscher H.J.
        • Rinastiti M.
        • Siswomihardjo W.
        • Van der Mei H.C.
        Biofilm formation on dental restorative and implant materials.
        J Dent Res. 2010; 89: 657-665
        • Calderini A.
        • Maiorana C.
        • Garlini G.
        • Abbondanza T.
        A simplified method to assess precision of fit between framework and supporting implants: a preliminary study.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007; 22: 831-838
        • Kim S.G.
        • Chung C.H.
        • Son M.K.
        Effect of cement washout on loosening of abutment screws and vice versa in screw-and cement-retained implant-supported dental prosthesis.
        J Adv Prosthodont. 2015; 7: 207-213
        • Guichet D.L.
        • Caputo A.A.
        • Choi H.
        • Sorensen J.A.
        Passivity of fit and marginal opening in screw- or cement-retained implant fixed partial denture designs.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15: 239-246
        • Taylor T.D.
        • Agar J.R.
        Twenty years of progress in implant prosthodontics.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88: 89-95
        • McGlumphy E.A.
        • Mendel D.A.
        • Holloway J.A.
        Implant screw mechanics.
        Dent Clin North Am. 1998; 42: 71-89
        • Purcell B.A.
        • McGlumphy E.A.
        • Holloway J.A.
        • Beck F.M.
        Prosthetic complications in mandibular metal-resin implant-fixed complete dental prostheses: a 5-to 9-year analysis.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008; 23: 847-857
        • Bozini T.
        • Petridis H.
        • Tzanas K.
        • Garefis P.
        A meta-analysis of prosthodontic complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in edentulous patients after an observation period of at least 5 years.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26: 304-318
        • Abdulmajeed A.A.
        • Lim K.G.
        • Närhi T.O.
        • Cooper L.F.
        Complete-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses: a systematic review.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 672-677
        • Bidra A.S.
        • Tischler M.
        • Patch C.
        Survival of 2039 complete arch fixed implant-supported zirconia prostheses: a retrospective study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 220-224
        • Tischler M.
        • Patch C.
        • Bidra A.S.
        Rehabilitation of edentulous jaws with zirconia complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses: an up to 4-yearretrospective clinical study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 204-209
        • Taylor P.A.
        Incorporating retrievability in fixed implant-supported prostheses by transverse fixation in the ITI abutment system.
        J Can Dent Assoc. 2004; 70: 459-465
        • Clausen G.F.
        The lingual locking screw for implant-retained restorations--aesthetics and retrievability.
        Aust Prosthodont J. 1995; 9: 17-20
        • Maló P.
        • de Araújo Nobre M.
        • Borges J.
        • Almeida R.
        Retrievable metal ceramic implant-supported fixed prostheses with milled titanium frameworks and all-ceramic crowns: retrospective clinical study with up to 10 years of follow-up.
        J Prosthodont. 2012; 21: 256-264
        • Al-Rabab'ah M.
        • Hamadneh W.
        • Alsalem I.
        • Khraisat A.
        • Abu Karaky A.
        Use of high performance polymers as dental implant abutments and frameworks: a case series report.
        J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 365-372
        • Anitua E.
        • Flores C.
        • Piñas L.
        • Alkhraisat M.
        Frequency of technical complications in fixed implant prosthesis: the effect of prosthesis screw emergence correction by CAD-CAM.
        J Oral Implantol. 2018; 44: 427-431
        • Tamac E.
        • Toksavul S.
        • Toman M.
        Clinical marginal and internal adaptation of CAD-CAM milling, laser sintering, and cast metal ceramic crowns.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 909-913
        • Strub J.R.
        • Rekow E.D.
        • Witkowski S.
        Computer-aided design and fabrication of dental restorations: current systems and future possibilities.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2006; 137: 1289-1296
        • Murr L.E.
        • Martinez E.
        • Amato K.N.
        • Gaytan S.M.
        • Hernandez J.
        • Ramirez D.A.
        • et al.
        Fabrication of metal and alloy components by additive manufacturing: examples of 3D materials science.
        J Mater Res Technol. 2012; 1: 42-54
        • Bhaskaran E.
        • Azhagarasan N.S.
        • Miglani S.
        • Ilango T.
        • Krishna G.P.
        • Gajapathi B.
        Comparative evaluation of marginal and internal gap of Co–Cr copings fabricated from conventional wax pattern, 3D printed resin pattern and DMLS tech: an in vitro study.
        J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2013; 13: 189-195
        • Koyano K.
        • Esaki D.
        Occlusion on oral implants: current clinical guidelines.
        J Oral Rehabil. 2015; 42: 153-161
        • Kim Y.
        • Oh T.J.
        • Misch C.E.
        • Wang H.L.
        Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005; 16: 26-35
        • Rilo B.
        • da Silva J.L.
        • Mora M.J.
        • Santana U.
        Guidelines for occlusion strategy in implant-borne prostheses: a review.
        Int Dent J. 2008; 58: 139-145
        • Gross M.D.
        Occlusion in implant dentistry. A review of the literature of prosthetic determinants and current concepts.
        Aust Dent J. 2008; 53: 60-68
        • Komiyama O.
        • Lobbezoo F.
        • De Laat A.
        • Iida T.
        • Kitagawa T.
        • Murakami H.
        • et al.
        Clinical management of implant prostheses in patients with bruxism.
        Int J Biomater. 2012; 2012: 369063
        • de Kanter R.J.A.M.
        • Battistuzzi P.G.F.C.M.
        • Truin G.J.
        Temporomandibular disorders: “occlusion” matters!.
        Pain Res Manag. 2018; 2018: 8746858