Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(03): 488-499
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740298
Review Article

Clinical and Laboratory Outcomes of Angled Screw Channel Implant Prostheses: A Systematic Review

Vanya Rasaie 
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Jaafar Abduo
2   Department of Prosthodontics, Melbourne Dental School, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Australia
,
Mehran Falahchai 
3   Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Sciences Research Center, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical and laboratory outcomes of angled screw channel (ASC) restorations and to summarize the influencing factors. An electronic search of the English language literature was performed in four databases and enriched by manual searches. Retrieved studies were screened against the predefined exclusion and inclusion criteria. Eight clinical and seven laboratory studies were eligible for the analysis. The risk of bias for included observational studies was performed using the Newcastle–Ottawa quality assessment scale. Laboratory studies quality assessment method was adapted from previous published systematic reviews. Two clinical studies focused on technical outcomes and the rest reported the biological outcomes of the ASC restorations. Out of the seven laboratory studies, two studies investigated the fracture resistance of ASC restorations, four studies evaluated the reverse torque value of the nonaxially tightened screws, and one study evaluated both variables. The present review revealed that while the performance of ASC restorations is promising in short-term clinical studies, the evidence of their long-term reliability is still lacking. The laboratory studies indicated comparable fracture resistance results of the ASC restorations with the straight screw channel restorations. In addition, factors, such as initial torque value, configuration of the screw driver, screw design, abutment system, and the angulation of screw channel, were shown to influence the screw resistance to loosening.

Keywords

angulated screw channel - screw-retained prosthesis - computer aided design- computer aided manufacturing - implant


Publication History

Article published online:
21 February 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Moraschini V, Poubel LA, Ferreira VF, Barboza EdosS. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 44 (03) 377-388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dario LJ. Implant angulation and position and screw or cement retention: clinical guidelines. Implant Dent 1996; 5 (02) 101-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Zwahlen M, Hämmerle CH, Schneider D. Cemented and screw-retained implant reconstructions: a systematic review of the survival and complication rates. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23 (Suppl. 06) 163-201
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Michalakis KX, Hirayama H, Garefis PD. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18 (05) 719-728
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Albrektsson T, Canullo L, Cochran D, De Bruyn H. “Peri-implantitis”: a complication of a foreign body or a man-made “disease”. Facts and fiction. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016; 18 (04) 840-849
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Millen C, Brägger U, Wittneben JG. Influence of prosthesis type and retention mechanism on complications with fixed implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review applying multivariate analyses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30 (01) 110-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cavallaro Jr J, Greenstein G. Angled implant abutments: a practical application of available knowledge. J Am Dent Assoc 2011; 142 (02) 150-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sethi A, Sochor P. The lateral fixation screw in implant dentistry. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2000; 8 (01) 39-43
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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 Prosthet Dent 2015; 113 (06) 516-519
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Edmondson EK, Trejo PM, Soldatos N, Weltman RL. The ability to screw-retain single implant-supported restorations in the anterior maxilla: a CBCT analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2021; S0022-3913 (21) 00032-00039
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Wells GSB, O'Connell D, Peterson J. et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Accessed January 16, 2020 at: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Wang C, Shi YF, Xie PJ, Wu JH. Accuracy of digital complete dentures: a systematic review of in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 125 (02) 249-256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Rosa WL, Piva E, Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2015; 43 (07) 765-776
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Garcia-Hammaker S, Saglik B, Sierraalta M, Razzoog M. Influence of screw channel angulation on the fracture resistance of zirconia abutments: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2021; 30 (04) 329-334
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Drew A, Randi A, DiPede L, Luke A. Fracture strength of implant screw-retained all-ceramic crowns with the use of the angulated screw channel: a pilot study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2020; 40 (02) 245-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Swamidass RS, Kan JYK, Kattadiyil MT, Goodacre CJ, Lozada J. Abutment screw torque changes with straight and angled screw-access channels. J Prosthet Dent 2021; 124 (04) 675-681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Opler R, Wadhwani C, Chung KH. The effect of screwdriver angle variation on the off-axis implant abutment system and hexalobular screw. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 123 (03) 524-528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mulla SH, Seghi RR, Johnston WM, Yilmaz B. Effect of cyclic loading on reverse torque values of angled screw channel systems. J Prosthet Dent 2021; S0022-3913 (21) 00007-X DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.020.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hu E, Petrich A, Imamura G, Hamlin C. Effect of screw channel angulation on reverse torque values of dental implant abutment screws. J Prosthodont 2019; 28 (09) 969-972
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Goldberg J, Lee T, Phark JH, Chee W. Removal torque and force to failure of non-axially tightened implant abutment screws. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121 (02) 322-326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pol CWP, Raghoebar GM, Maragkou Z, Cune MS, Meijer HJA. Full-zirconia single-tooth molar implant-supported restorations with angulated screw channel abutments: a 1-year prospective case series study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2020; 22 (01) 138-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Greer AC, Hoyle PJ, Vere JW, Wragg PF. Mechanical complications associated with angled screw channel restorations. Int J Prosthodont 2017; 30 (03) 258-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Friberg B, Ahmadzai M. A prospective study on single tooth reconstructions using parallel walled implants with internal connection (NobelParallel CC) and abutments with angulated screw channels (ASC). Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21 (02) 226-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Anitua E, Flores C, Piñas L, Alkhraisat MH. Frequency of technical complications in fixed implant prosthesis: the effect of prosthesis screw emergence correction by computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing. J Oral Implantol 2018; 44 (06) 427-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Anitua E, Fernández-de-Retana S, Alkhraisat MH. Survival and marginal bone loss of dental implants supporting cad-cam angled channel restorations: a split-mouth retrospective study. Eur J Dent 2020; 14 (02) 194-199
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Tallarico M, Ceruso FM, Xhanari E, Gargari M, Canullo L, Meloni SM. Immediately loaded tilted implants combined with angulated screw channel zirconia abutments in atrophic maxillary patients: a three-year after loading prospective case series study. ORAL and Implantol. 2018; 11: 106-114
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Shi J-Y, Lv X-L, Gu Y-X, Lai H-C. Angulated screw-retained and cemented implant crowns following flapless immediate implant placement in the aesthetic region: a 1-year prospective cohort study. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 2020; 13 (03) 269-277
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Nastri L, Nucci L, Grassia V, Miraldi R. Aesthetic outcomes and peri-implant health of angled screw retained implant restorations compared with cement retained crowns: medium term follow-up. J Funct Biomater 2021; 12 (02) 12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Lin YT, Shen YF, Wei PC, Hsu KW. Clinical evaluation of two-piece zirconia abutments with bonded titanium inserts for implant-supported restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 123 (03) 449-454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Aboushelib MN, Salameh Z. Zirconia implant abutment fracture: clinical case reports and precautions for use. Int J Prosthodont 2009; 22 (06) 616-619
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Zandparsa R, Albosefi A. An in vitro comparison of fracture load of zirconia custom abutments with internal connection and different angulations and thicknesses: part II. J Prosthodont 2016; 25 (02) 151-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Bickford JH. An Introduction to the Design and Behavior of Bolted Joints. Oxford, United Kingdom: Tylor and Francis Group; 1995: 175-180
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Torcato LB, Pellizzer EP, Verri FR, Falcón-Antenucci RM, Santiago Júnior JF, de Faria Almeida DA. Influence of parafunctional loading and prosthetic connection on stress distribution: a 3D finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114 (05) 644-651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hurson S. Use of authentic, integrated dental implant components vital to predictability and successful long-term clinical outcomes. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2016; 37 (07) 450-455 , z456
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Monje A, Chan HL, Suarez F, Galindo-Moreno P, Wang HL. Marginal bone loss around tilted implants in comparison to straight implants: a meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012; 27 (06) 1576-1583
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Del Fabbro M, Ceresoli V. The fate of marginal bone around axial vs. tilted implants: a systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantology 2014; 7 (Suppl. 02) S171-S189
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Chen Z, Lin CY, Li J, Wang HL, Yu H. Influence of abutment height on peri-implant marginal bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 122 (01) 14-21.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Tallarico M, Caneva M, Meloni SM, Xhanari E, Covani U, Canullo L. Definitive abutments placed at implant insertion and never removed: is it an effective approach? a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2018; 76 (02) 316-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Anitua E, Alkhraisat MH. Clinical performance of short dental implants supporting single crown restoration in the molar-premolar region: cement versus screw retention. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019; 34 (04) 969-976
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Chen J-Y, Pan Y-H. Zirconia implant abutments supporting single all-ceramic crowns in anterior and premolar regions: a six-year retrospective study. Biomed J 2019; 42 (05) 358-364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Guljé FL, Meijer HJA, Abrahamsson I. et al. Comparison of 6-mm and 11-mm dental implants in the posterior region supporting fixed dental prostheses: 5-year results of an open multicenter randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2021; 32 (01) 15-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Hotinski E, Dudley J. Abutment screw loosening in angulation-correcting implants: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2019; 121 (01) 151-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Menéndez-Collar M, Serrera-Figallo MA, Hita-Iglesias P. et al. Straight and tilted implants for supporting screw-retained full-arch dental prostheses in atrophic maxillae: a 2-year prospective study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2018; 23 (06) e733-e741
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Mokhtarpour H, Eftekhar Ashtiani R, Mahshid M, Tabatabaian F, Alikhasi M. Effect of screw access hole preparation on fracture load of implant-supported zirconia-based crowns: an in vitro study. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect 2016; 10 (03) 181-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Paolantoni G, Marenzi G, Blasi A, Mignogna J, Sammartino G. Findings of a four-year randomized controlled clinical trial comparing two-piece and one-piece zirconia abutments supporting single prosthetic restorations in maxillary anterior region. BioMed Res Int 2016; 2016: 8767845
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Vélez J, Peláez J, López-Suárez C, Agustín-Panadero R, Tobar C, Suárez MJ. Influence of implant connection, abutment design and screw insertion torque on implant-abutment misfit. J Clin Med 2020; 9 (08) 2365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 González-Martín O, Veltri M. Immediate implant in maxillary central incisors and prosthetic screw channel: a CBCT feasibility study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2021; 41 (02) 245-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Farré-Berga O, Cercadillo-Ibarguren I, Sánchez-Torres A. et al. Novel ball head screw and screwdriver design for implant-supported prostheses with angled channels: a finite element analysis. J Oral Implantol 2018; 44 (06) 416-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Farronato D, Manfredini M, Stevanello A, Campana V, Azzi L, Farronato M. A comparative 3D finite element computational study of three connections. Materials (Basel) 2019; 12 (19) 3135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Wang J, Lerman G, Bittner N, Fan W, Lalla E, Papapanou PN. Immediate versus delayed temporization at posterior single implant sites: A randomized controlled trial. J Clin Periodontol 2020; 47 (10) 1281-1291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar