Designing abutments for cement retained implant supported restorations

British Dental Journal

Volumn 201, Issue 9, 2006, Pages 559-563

  Chee, Winston ^a,b,c   Jivraj, S ^a,b  

^a Department of Restorative Dentistry ^*

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMATERIAL; TOOTH CEMENT;

ANIMAL; BONE SCREW; CHEMISTRY; DENTURE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; REVIEW; TOOTH PROSTHESIS;

ANIMALS; BIOCOMPATIBLE MATERIALS; BONE SCREWS; DENTAL ABUTMENTS; DENTAL CEMENTS; DENTAL PROSTHESIS DESIGN; DENTAL PROSTHESIS RETENTION; DENTAL PROSTHESIS, IMPLANT-SUPPORTED; HUMANS;

EID: 33750931559     PISSN: 00070610     EISSN: 17417503     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4814205     Document Type: Review

References (6)

1. Chee W, Felton D A, Johnson P F, Sullivan D Y. Cemented versus screw-retained implant prostheses: which is better? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1999; 14: 137-141.
2. Chee W W, Torbati A, Albouy J P. Retrievable cemented implant restorations. J Prosthodont 1998; 7: 120-125.
3. Agar J R, Cameron S M, Hughbanks J C, Parker M H. Cement removal from restorations luted to titanium abutments with simulated subgingival margins. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78: 43-47.
4. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Glantz P O, Lindhe J. The mucosal attachment at different abutments. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1998; 25: 721-727.
5. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Sekino S, Lindhe J. Tissue reactions to abutment shift: an experimental study in dogs. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003; 5: 82-88.
6. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. The mucosal barrier following abutment dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1997; 24: 568-572.