Single Dental Implant Restoration: Cemented or Screw-Retained? A Systematic Review of Multi-Factor Randomized Clinical Trials

Abstract

Background: Dental implant rehabilitation has significantly advanced prosthodontics by providing a reliable, long-lasting solution for missing teeth. This systematic review compares the clinical, technical, and biological outcomes of cemented versus screw-retained single dental implant restorations based on randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Materials and Methods: This review included recent human and in vitro studies focusing on the keywords “cemented vs. screw-retained” and “dental implant”. Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, which investigated parameters, including implant survival rate, bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth, plaque index, marginal bone loss (MBL), cytokine concentrations, mechanical complications, esthetic outcomes, patient satisfaction, treatment time, and technical failures. Results: The primary outcomes, BOP and MBL, did not statistically differ between cemented and screw-retained implants (p-values for MBL and BOP are 0.5813 and 0.8093, respectively). The reviewed studies, including RCTs, split-mouth studies, and clinical evaluations, demonstrated comparable clinical, technical, and biological outcomes between the two restoration methods. Conclusions: Screw-retained and cemented dental implant restorations exhibit similar clinical, technical, and biological outcomes. Screw-retained restorations offer advantages such as retrievability, ease of repair, and predictable passive fit, while cemented restorations provide superior esthetics. The risk of peri-implant complications due to residual cement in cemented restorations must be considered. Future research should explore long-term stability and the impact of different prosthetic protocols on peri-implant health.