ArticleCureus2026
Effect of Implant Angulation on Long-Term Outcomes of Screw-Retained Versus Cement-Retained Single Implant Crowns: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionImplant angulation and prosthetic retention are critical determinants of the long-term success of implant-supported restorations. However, there is limited evidence to evaluate the combined influence on prosthetic survival and complication rates. This study aimed to assess the effects of implant angulation on the outcomes of screw-retained and cement-retained implant-supported crowns. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted using institutional electronic dental records. A total of 720 implant-supported single crowns with a minimum follow-up of five years were included. Cases were categorized based on the prosthetic retention type and stratified into angulation groups of 0-10°, 11-20°, and greater than 20°. Data on prosthetic survival, mechanical complications, and biological complications were also collected. Statistical analyses included independent samples t-test, chi-square test, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Cox proportional hazards regression, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis.
resultsThe mean age of participants was 52.4 ± 11.6 years. No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics between the groups (p > 0.05). Prosthetic survival decreased with increasing angulation. The five‑year cumulative survival rates for screw‑retained crowns were 98.2% (0-10°), 94.5% (11-20°), and 88.7% (>20°); for cement‑retained crowns, survival rates were 96.8% (0-10°), 87.3% (11-20°), and 72.4% (>20°). Screw‑retained restorations demonstrated significantly better survival across all angulation categories (log‑rank p < 0.001). At angulations greater than 20°, cement-retained restorations showed higher rates of mechanical complications, including crown decementation and screw loosening, compared to screw-retained restorations (p < 0.001). Biological complications such as peri-implantitis were also higher in cement-retained restorations (p < 0.001). Regression analysis identified cement-retained restorations (hazard ratio, 1.42) and angulation greater than 20° (hazard ratio, 1.87) as significant predictors of complications.
conclusionImplant angulation had a significant impact on prosthetic outcomes, with higher angulations being associated with increased complication rates. Screw-retained restorations demonstrated a more favorable performance than cement-retained restorations, particularly at angulations greater than 20°. These findings highlight the importance of considering the implant angulation during treatment planning. A preference for screw-retained designs in highly angulated cases may improve long-term clinical success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.