There is controversy in the literature regarding the indicated retentive mechanism for implant-supported crowns. When adjacent implants are restored, the restoration can be screw retained, cement retained, or a combination of cement and screw retained. Adjacent implant-supported crowns can be restored as individual implant supported crowns or can be splinted. A classification system is proposed when adjacent implants are restored. The classification system describes currently available options to restore adjacent implants. Six types of prosthetic design options are proposed as Class I through Class VI. In Class I design, individual cement-retained crowns are made. In Class II, individual screw-retained crowns are fabricated. Class III involves fabrication of individual screw-retrievable/cement-retained crowns. Class IV prosthetic design involves splinted cement-retained implant crowns. Class V prosthetic design involves splinted screw-retained crowns, and Class VI involves splinted screw-retrievable/cement-retained implant supported crowns.

Introduction

While dental implants were introduced for completely edentulous patients,1  they soon became a valid treatment modality for partially edentulous patients as well.2,3  Among other factors, the distribution of occlusal forces may influence the long-term success of dental implants.48  Several authors have suggested that splinting adjacent implants may reduce the occlusal forces that are applied to each individual implant.911  A study based on finite element analysis concluded that occlusal forces are better distributed when adjacent implants are splinted together.12  On the other hand, restoring adjacent implants with individual crowns enhances esthetics and eliminates the issue of addressing potential lack of passive fit of a splinted prosthesis.13,14  Vigolo et al4  reported that after 10 years of functional loading, marginal bone loss around nonsplinted implants was comparable to marginal bone loss around splinted implants. However, splinted implant prostheses have been associated with increased veneer and framework fracture.14  It is typically easier to address prosthetic complications in nonsplinted adjacent implants because if 1 unit has a prosthetic complication then only that unit needs to be removed; whereas if the crowns are splinted, the clinician would have to remove the entire prosthesis. When adjacent implants are nonsplinted, oral hygiene is easily facilitated, and less stress may be applied onto the implants through the prosthesis.15 

Screw-retentive prosthesis have the advantage of being easily retrievable.16,17  However, the presence of occlusal access holes compromises the esthetics, ceramic strength, and occlusion.16,18  Cement-retained prostheses are easier to fabricate, offer easier access to the posterior area of the mouth, and have higher potential for passive fit.1620  While an earlier systematic review focusing on implant and prosthesis survival rate indicated no differences between cement-retained and screw-retained prostheses,21  a more recent systematic review revealed significantly more biologic complications with cement-retained prostheses while screw-retained prostheses demonstrated increased technical complications.22  Similar findings were published by Wittneben et al23  and Millen et al,24  where screw-retained restorations were associated with increased rate of technical complications. Finite element analysis25  and clinical26  studies have indicated similar results when screw-retentive prostheses were associated with increased risk of mechanical complications.

A major limitation of cement-retained implant restoration is the difficulty to remove the excess cement.27,28  Residual cement remnants have been associated with peri-implantitis.2934  To address this, some authors3538  recently introduced a new design of screw-retrievable and cement-retained implant-supported prostheses featuring the combined advantages of both modes of retention. In a clinical study, Nissan et al39  reported that the combination of cement and screw-retained implant prostheses improves the survival rates of the prosthesis over time and lowers the cost of maintenance without increasing the risk for porcelain fracture or screw loosening.

The purpose of the current article is to introduce a classification system when 2 adjacent implants are being restored. The aim of the proposed classification system is to incorporate and identify all the different design choices regarding splinting adjacent implants or restoring them as individual units, and using a screw, cement, or a combination of both retentive mechanisms for the definitive implant prosthesis.

Classification

Following are the different classifications of prostheses:

  • Class I prosthetic design: Individual crowns are cemented on the abutments (Figure 1).

  • Class II prosthetic design: Individual crowns are screw retained on the implants (Figure 2).

  • Class III prosthetic design: Individual screw-retrievable cement-retained prostheses are made (Figure 3).

  • Class IV prosthetic design: Splinted crowns are cemented on the abutments (Figure 4).

  • Class V prosthetic design: Splinted crowns are screw retained on the implants (Figure 5).

  • Class VI prosthetic design: Splinted crowns are designed to be screw retrievable/cement retained on the implants (Figure 6).

Figures 1 and 2

Figure 1. (a) Class I prosthetic design. Individual crowns are fabricated and cemented on the abutments. (b) Clinical situation where individual abutments were placed on adjacent implants. (c) Clinical situation where the definitive prosthesis was placed on adjacent implants comprising individual crowns cemented on the abutments. Figure 2. (a) Class II prosthetic design. Individual crowns are made that are screw retained on the implants. (b) Clinical situation were 2 adjacent individual screw-retained crowns were fabricated. (c) Definitive screw-retained crowns.

Figures 1 and 2

Figure 1. (a) Class I prosthetic design. Individual crowns are fabricated and cemented on the abutments. (b) Clinical situation where individual abutments were placed on adjacent implants. (c) Clinical situation where the definitive prosthesis was placed on adjacent implants comprising individual crowns cemented on the abutments. Figure 2. (a) Class II prosthetic design. Individual crowns are made that are screw retained on the implants. (b) Clinical situation were 2 adjacent individual screw-retained crowns were fabricated. (c) Definitive screw-retained crowns.

Figures 3 and 4

Figure 3. (a) Class III prosthetic design. Individual crowns are fabricated that are cement and screw retained. (b) Clinical situation where 2 adjacent implants were restored with 2 individual cement- and screw-retained crowns. Figure 4. (a) Class IV prosthetic design. The crowns are splinted together and cemented on the abutments. (b) Prosthetic design where 2 splinted crowns were fabricated to be cemented on the abutments. (c) Clinical situation; intraoral view with the definitive Type IV prosthesis cemented on the abutments.

Figures 3 and 4

Figure 3. (a) Class III prosthetic design. Individual crowns are fabricated that are cement and screw retained. (b) Clinical situation where 2 adjacent implants were restored with 2 individual cement- and screw-retained crowns. Figure 4. (a) Class IV prosthetic design. The crowns are splinted together and cemented on the abutments. (b) Prosthetic design where 2 splinted crowns were fabricated to be cemented on the abutments. (c) Clinical situation; intraoral view with the definitive Type IV prosthesis cemented on the abutments.

Figures 5 and 6

Figure 5. (a) Class V prosthetic design. The crowns are splinted and screw retained on the implants. (b) Clinical example where 2 splinted screw-retained crowns were fabricated to restore 2 adjacent implants. adjacent implants. (c) Intraoral view, Type V prosthetic design. Figure 6. (a) Class VI prosthetic design. The crowns are splinted together and are designed to be cement- and screw-retained on the abutments. (b) Example of Type VI prosthesis, splinted crowns designed to be cement- and screw-retained on the abutments. (c) Type VI prosthesis; the splinted crowns are designed to be intraorally cemented and then screw retained to be easily retrievable.

Figures 5 and 6

Figure 5. (a) Class V prosthetic design. The crowns are splinted and screw retained on the implants. (b) Clinical example where 2 splinted screw-retained crowns were fabricated to restore 2 adjacent implants. adjacent implants. (c) Intraoral view, Type V prosthetic design. Figure 6. (a) Class VI prosthetic design. The crowns are splinted together and are designed to be cement- and screw-retained on the abutments. (b) Example of Type VI prosthesis, splinted crowns designed to be cement- and screw-retained on the abutments. (c) Type VI prosthesis; the splinted crowns are designed to be intraorally cemented and then screw retained to be easily retrievable.

Discussion

The significance of the proposed classification is that it offers a way to codify the different design modalities that are available when restoring adjacent implants (Table). The primary advantage of a screw-retention design is the ease of prosthesis retrievability.16,17  Some authors support the need for prosthesis retrievability with the well-established high implant success rates.2124  Prosthetic complications can be better addressed when the prosthesis is easily retrievable. On the other hand, cement-retained prosthesis have been documented to offer better esthetics,16,17  better occlusion,16  and superior passive fit compared with a screw-retrievable prosthesis.19,20  Superior passive fit is associated with higher reduction of stress on the supporting implants and strain on the prosthesis.15,25  Both retentive mechanisms are acceptable so long as the clinician can weigh the advantages and limitations of each retentive mechanism concept when choosing for a specific clinical situation. The suggested screw-retrievable/cement-retained3540  implant-supported prosthesis combines the advantages of cement and screw retention mechanisms while offering an additional design consideration.

Table 1

Grading the anticipated advantages and limitations of each designed prosthesis for each design classification*

Grading the anticipated advantages and limitations of each designed prosthesis for each design classification*
Grading the anticipated advantages and limitations of each designed prosthesis for each design classification*

Although splinting adjacent implants can be advantageous in distributing occlusal forces,911  several authors have indicated that restoring adjacent implants with individual prosthetic units might be a better treatment modality.13,14  Long-term clinical data have demonstrated that there is no superiority in either restorative concept.4  Splinting or nonsplinting adjacent implants seems to be acceptable, and clinicians need to be familiar with potential advantages and drawbacks of each restorative concept. This article identifies and classifies the different prosthetic options for restoring adjacent implants. The proposed classification codifies the currently available retentive and splinting versus nonsplinting concepts of definitive prosthesis designs for adjacent implants for effective communication and reporting. It is anticipated that this classification can be utilized in future reports of complications associated with these different designs.

Conclusion

The proposed classification for restoring adjacent root form implants offers a systematic codification regarding options to provide retention to the implant prostheses and splinting versus non-splinting design considerations. It is anticipated that this classification can assist in compiling outcomes data regarding complications.

Note

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

References
1
Adell
R,
Lekholm
U,
Rockler
B,
Branemark
PI. .
15 year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw
.
Int J Oral Surg
.
1981
;
10
:
387
416
.
2
Jemt
T,
Lekholm
U,
Adell
R.
Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous patients: a preliminary study of 876 consecutively installed fixtures
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1989
;
4
:
211
217
.
3
Jemt
T,
Pettersson
P. .
3-year follow-up study on single implant treatment
.
J Dent
.
1993
;
21
:
203
208
.
4
Vigolo
P,
Mutinelli
S,
Zaccaria
M,
Stellini
E.
Clinical evaluation of marginal bone level change around multiple adjacent implants restored with splinted and nonsplinted restorations: a 10-year randomized controlled trial
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2015
;
30
:
411
418
.
5
Quirynen
M,
Naert
I,
van Steenberghe
D.
Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Brånemark system
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
1992
;
3
:
104
111
.
6
Tonetti
MS,
Schmid
J.
Pathogenesis of implant failures
.
Periodontology
.
2000
1994;
4
:
127
138
.
7
Isidor
F.
Loss of osseointegration caused by occlusal load of oral implants. A clinical and radiographic study in monkeys
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
1996
;
7
:
143
152
.
8
Isidor
F.
Histological evaluation of peri-implant bone at implants subjected to occlusal overload or plaque accumulation
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
1997
;
8
:
1
9
.
9
Wang
TM,
Leu
LJ,
Wang
J,
Lin
LD.
Effects of prosthesis materials and prosthesis splinting on peri-implant bone stress around implants in poor-quality bone: a numeric analysis
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2002
;
17
:
231
237
.
10
Guichet
DL,
Yoshinobu
D,
Caputo
AA.
Effect of splinting and interproximal contact tightness on load transfer by implant restorations
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
2002
;
87
:
528
535
.
11
Skalak
R.
Biomechanical considerations in osseointegrated prostheses
.
J Prosthet Dent
1983
;
49
:
843
848
.
12
Stegaroiu
R,
Sato
T,
Kusakari
H,
Miyakawa
O.
Influence of restoration type on stress distribution in bone around implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1998
;
13
:
82
90
.
13
Solnit
GS,
Schneider
RL.
An alternative to splinting multiple implants: use of the ITI system
.
J Prosthodont
.
1998
;
7
:
114
119
.
14
Norton
MR.
Multiple single-tooth implant restorations in the posterior jaws: maintenance of marginal bone levels with reference to the implant-abutment microgap
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2006
;
21
:
777
784
.
15
English
CE.
Biomechanical concerns with fixed partial dentures involving implants
.
Implant Dent
.
1993
;
2
:
221
242
.
16
Hebel
KS,
Gajjar
RC.
Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
1997
;
77
:
28
35
.
17
Chee
W,
Felton
DA,
Johnson
PF,
Sullivan
DY.
Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: which is better?
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1999
;
14
:
137
141
.
18
AlHelal
A,
Kattadiyil
MT,
Clark
JL,
Al Bader
B.
Diagnostic classification and design considerations for implant-supported fixed partial dentures and screw access channel: the ABC/PBC and SAC Classifications
.
Int J Prosthodont
.
2016
;
30
:
490
495
.
19
Guichet
DL,
Caputo
AA,
Choi
H,
Sorensen
JA.
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
.
20
Michalakis
KX,
Hirayama
H,
Garefis
PD.
Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: a critical review
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2003
;
18
:
719
728
.
21
Weber
HP,
Sukotjo
C.
Does the type of implant prosthesis affect outcomes in the partially edentulous patient?
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2007
;
22
(
suppl
):
140
172
.
22
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
:
163
201
.
23
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
.
24
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
:
110
124
.
25
Silva
GC,
Cornacchia
TM,
de Magalhães
CS,
Bueno
AC,
Moreira
AN.
Biomechanical evaluation of screw- and cement-retained implant-supported prostheses: a nonlinear finite element analysis
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
2014
;
112
:
1479
488
.
26
Nissan
J,
Narobai
D,
Gross
O,
Ghelfan
O,
Chaushu
G.
Long-term outcome of cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported partial restorations
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2011
;
26
:
1102
1107
.
27
Agar
JR,
Cameron
SM,
Hughbanks
JC,
Parker
MH.
Cement removal from restorations luted to titanium abutments with simulated subgingival margins
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
1997
;
78
:
43
47
.
28
Pauletto
N,
Lahiffe
BJ,
Walton
JN.
Complications associated with excess cement around crowns on osseointegrated implants: a clinical report
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
1999
;
14
:
865
868
.
29
Behr
M,
Spitzer
A,
Preis
V,
Weng
D,
Gosau
M,
Rosentritt
M.
The extent of luting agent remnants on titanium and zirconia abutment analogs after scaling
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2014
;
29
:
1185
1192
.
30
Wilson
T.
Jr1. The positive relationship between excess cement and peri-implant disease: a prospective clinical endoscopic study
.
J Periodontol
.
2009
;
80
:
1388
1392
.
31
Shapoff
CA,
Lahey
BJ.
Crestal bone loss and the consequences of retained excess cement around dental implants
.
Compend Contin Educ Dent
.
2012
;
33
:
94
96
,
98–101
.
32
Burbano
M,
Wilson
TG
Jr,
Valderrama
P,
et al.
Characterization of cement particles found in peri-implantitis-affected human biopsy specimens
.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants
.
2015
;
30
:
1168
1173
.
33
Korsch
M,
Obst
U,
Walther
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
.
34
Ramer
N,
Wadhwani
C,
Kim
A,
Hershman
D.
Histologic findings within peri-implant soft tissue in failed implants secondary to excess cement: report of two cases and review of literature
.
N Y State Dent J
.
2014
;
80
:
43
46
.
35
Uludag
B,
Celik
G.
Fabrication of a cement- and screw-retained multiunit implant restoration
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2006
;
32
:
248
250
.
36
Uludag
B,
Ozturk
O,
Celik
G,
Goktug
G.
Fabrication of a retrievable cement- and screw-retained implant-supported zirconium fixed partial denture: a case report
.
J Oral Implantol
.
2008
;
34
:
59
62
.
37
Rajan
M,
Gunaseelan
R.
Fabrication of a cement- and screw-retained implant prosthesis
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
2004
;
92
:
578
580
.
38
Al Helal
A,
Kattadiyil
MT,
AlBader
B,
Clark
JL.
A protocol for screw-retrievable, cement-retained, implant-supported fixed partial dentures
.
Int J Prosthodont
.
In press
.
39
Nissan
J,
Snir
D,
Rosner
O,
Kolerman
R,
Chaushu
L,
Chaushu
G.
Reliability of retrievable cemented implant-supported prostheses
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
2016
;
115
:
587
591
.
40
Proussaefs
P,
Al Helal
A.
The combination prosthesis: a digitally designed retrievable cement and screw retained implant supported prosthesis
.
J Prosthet Dent
.
In press.