Shanta Chopra¹*, Sadhika², Manisha² and Jasleen Arora³

¹MDS Prosthodontics, Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Genesis Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Ferozepur, Punjab, India
²MDS, Pedodontics Senior Lecturer, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Genesis Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Ferozepur, Punjab, India
³MDS Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge and Oral Implantology, India

*Corresponding Author: Shanta Chopra, MDS Prosthodontics, Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics, Genesis Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Ferozepur, Punjab, India.

Received: October 29, 2021; Published: November 25, 2021

Abstract

Using either cement or screw to retain prosthesis depends on the clinician’s choice. Both mode of treatment has their own advantages and disadvantages. Cement retained has better esthetics, better access, and low cost whereas screw-retained prosthesis preserves gingival health and its predictable retrievability that can be achieved without damaging the restoration or fixture. This case report presents a case with the replacement of mandibular molar due to inadequate interocclusal space for cement retained prosthesis and the situation was managed with UCLA abutment.

Keywords: Screw Retained; Cement Retained; Esthetics; Retrievability; Inadequate Interocclusal Space; UCLA

References

1. Rola Shadid and Nasrin Sadaqa. “A Comparison Between Screw- and Cement-Retained Implant Prostheses. A Literature Review”. Journal of Oral Implantology 3 (2012): 298-307.
2. Misch CE. “The importance of dental implants”. General Dentistry 49 (2001): 38-45.
3. Chopra S., et al. “Essix Appliance: An Innovation Modification for use as Temporary Bridge-A Case Report”. Journal of Advanced Medical and Dental Sciences Research 1 (2020): 184-186.
4. “The Glossary of Prosthodontic terms”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 5S (2017).
5. Goiato MC., et al. “Dynamic UCLA for single tilted implant in an aesthetic region”. International Journal of Surgery Case Reports 7 (2015): 149-153.
6. Singh N and Jatana CS. “Correction of misaligned implants-UCLA abutment”. Journal of Interdisciplinary Dentistry 3 (2014): 156.
7. Sorensen J., et al. “Nobelpharma vs UCLA abutment components: Vertical and horizontal interface fidelity”. In Palm Springs, Calif: UCLA Implant Symposium (1990).
8. Prisco R., et al. “New abutment for a screw-retained, implant-supported crown”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1 (2001): 30-33.
9. Wittneben JG., et al. “Screw retained vs. cement retained implant‐supported fixed dental prosthesis”. Periodontology1(2000): 141-151.

Citation

Citation: Shanta Chopra., et al. “Management of Limited Interocclusal Space Using UCLA Abutment to Retain the Prosthesis - A Case Reports”. Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 5.12 (2021): 77-81.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2021 Shanta Chopra., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.