IJPR  articles are Indexed in SCOPUSClick Here     Impact Factor for Five Years is 0.13 (2013 - 2018).    

logo

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH

A Step Towards Excellence

IJPR included in UGC-Approved List of Journals - Ref. No. is SL. No. 4812 & J. No. 63703

Published by : Advanced Scientific Research
ISSN
0975-2366
Current Issue
No Data found.
Article In Press
No Data found.
ADOBE READER

(Require Adobe Acrobat Reader to open, If you don't have Adobe Acrobat Reader)

Index Page 1
Click here to Download
IJPR 9[3] July - September 2017 Special Issue

July - September 9[3] 2017

Click to download
 

Article Detail

Label
Label
Compare Cement- And Screw-Retained Retention Systems in Fixed Implant-Supported Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author: SARA KHALEGHI, MARYAM FIROUZMANDI , AZADEH KIANIPOUR, AZADE FARHANGNIA
Abstract: Background and aim: Fixed-implant prostheses in the edentulous jaw are also a scientifically justified treatment option. Two fixation methods are used for fixed implant-supported restorations. They can be attached to implants with screws, or they can be cemented to abutments which are attached to implants. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the best type of retention system in fixed implant-supported restorations. Method: MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ISI, google scholar were used as electronic databases to perform a systematic literature between 2010 to 2019. A commercially available software program (Endnote X9) was used for electronic title management. Searches were performed with keywords, “screw-retained”, “Cement-retained”,” retention systems”,” ixed implant-supported”, “restoration” “implant” , ““cement”, “dental implant”. The present systematic review was performed based on the main consideration of PRISMA Statement– Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis. Result: A total of 63 potentially relevant titles and abstracts were found during the electronic and manual search. Finally, a total of six publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria required for this systematic review. For survival rates of implants heterogeneity found (I2 = 0.0%. p = 1.000), the meta-analysis showed a risk ratio of 0.993 (95% CI: 0.890– 1.109). in comparison of studies evaluating survival rates of Prostheses, heterogeneity found (I2 = 0.0%. p = 1.000), The meta-analysis showed a risk ratio of 0.991 (95% CI: 0.865– 1.136). Conclusion: Marginal bone loss in cement retained less than screw-retained.
Keyword: cement- retained, screw-retained, retention systems, fixed implant-supported restorations
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31838/ijpr/2020.12.01.122
Download: Request For Article
 












ONLINE SUBMISSION
USER LOGIN


Username
Password
Login | Register
News & Events
SCImago Journal & Country Rank

Terms and Conditions
Disclaimer
Refund Policy
Instrucations for Subscribers
Privacy Policy

Copyrights Form

0.12
2018CiteScore
 
8th percentile
Powered by  Scopus
Google Scholar

hit counters free