___

• Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics. 1st ed. St. Louis Missouri: Mosby; 2005. p.32-41.
• Moraschini V, Poubel LA, Ferreira VF, Barboza Edos S. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. International journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery. 2015;44(3):377-88.
• Aykent F, Özdoğan MS, Soğancı G. [Occlu- sion of implant supported prostheses]. Turkiye Klinikleri J Prosthodont-Special Topics. 2017;3(1):13-21.
• Lee A, Okayasu K, Wang HL. Screw versus Cementretained implant restoration: current concepts. Implant Dent 2010;19(1):8-15.
• Hebel KS, Gajjar RC. Cement-retained versus screwretained implant restorations: achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 1997;77(1):28-35.
• Wittneben JG, Joda T, Weber HP, Bragger U. Screw retained vs. cement retained implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis. Periodontology 2000. 2017;73(1):141- 151.
• Staubli N, Walter C, schmidt JC, Weiger R, Zitzmann NU. Excess cement and the risk of peri-implant disease–a systematic rewiew. Clinical oral implants research. 2017; 28(10): 1278-1290.
• Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Peciuliene V, The influence of margin location on the amount of undetected cement excess after delivery of cementretained implant restorations. Clinical oral implants research. 2011;22(12):1379-1384.
• Wittneben JG, Millen C, Bragger U. Clinical performance of screw- versus cement-retained fixed implant-supported reconstructions--a systematic review. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2014;29 Suppl:84- 98.
• Weber HP, Kim DM, Ng MW, Hwang JW, Fiorellini JP. Peri-implant soft-tissue health surrounding cementand screw-retained implant restorations: A multi-center, 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17: 375-379.
• Cardoso KB, Bergamo ETP, Cruz VM, Ramalho IS, Lino LFO, Bonfante EA. Three-dimensional misfit between Ti-base abutments and implants evaluated by replica technique. J Appl Oral Sci 2020;28: e20200343.
• Burkhardt F, Pitta J, Fehmer V, Mojon P, Sailer I. Retention forces of monolithic CAD/CAM crowns adhesively cemented to titanium base abutments-effect of saliva contamination followed by cleaning of the titanium bond surface. Materials (Basel) 2021;14(12): 3375.
• TP Bergamo E, Zahoui A, Luri Amorin Ikejiri L, etal. Retentionof zirconia crowns to Ti-base abutments: effect of luting protocol, abutment treatment and autoclave sterilization. J Prosthodont Res 2021; 65(02):171-175.
• Corvino E, Pesce P, Mura R, Marcano E, Canullo L. Influence of modified titanium abutment surface on peri-implant soft tis- sue behavior: a systematic review of in vitro studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2020;35(3):503-519.
• Richi MW, Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S, Ozan O. Comparison of the accuracy of different impression procedures in case of multiple and angulated implants. Head Face Med. 2020;16(1):1-12.
• Punj A, Bompolaki D, Garaicoa J. Dental Impression Materials and Techniques. Dent Clin North Am 2017;61(4):779-96.
• Joda T, Bragger U. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26: 1430-5.
• Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: An overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J. 2008;204(9):505-11.
• Bilmenoglu C, Cilingir A, Geckili O, Bilhan H, Bilgin T. In vitro comparison of trueness of 10 intraoral scanners for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2020;1-6.
• Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-Arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; Feb;109(2): 12-18.
• Korsch M, Marten S-M, Walther W, Vital M, Pieper DH, Impact of dental cement on the peri-implant biofilmmicrobial comparison of two different cements in an in vivo observational study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2018;20(5):806-813.
• Hsiao C-C, Liang C-H, Shen Y-F, Hsu K-W. Retrospective com- parison of posterior fixed dental prostheses supported by two different titanium abutments on tissue level implants. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125(6):877-882
• Corvino E, Pesce P, Mura R, Marcano E, Canullo L. Influence of modified titanium abutment surface on periimplant soft tis- sue behavior: a systematic review of in vitro
• Cardoso KB, Bergamo ET, Cruz VD, Ramalho I S, Lino LF, Bonfante EA. Three-dimensional misfit between Ti-Base abutments and implants evaluated by replica technique. J Appl Oral Sci. 2020;28: 388-94.
• Joda T, Ferrari M, Brägger U. Monolithic implantsupported lithium disilicate (LS2) crowns in a complete digital work- flow: a prospective clinical trial with a 2-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2017; 19(3):505- 511
• Al-Thobity AM. Titanium Base Abutments in Implant Prosthodontics: A Literature Review. Eur J Dent. 2022 Feb;16(1):49-55. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1735423. Epub 2021 Nov 18. PMID: 34794201; PMCID: PMC8890922.
• Gomez-Meda R, Esquivel J, Blatz MB. The esthetic biological contour concept for implant restoration emergence profile design. J Esthet Restor Dent 2021;33(1):173-184.
• Martínez-Rus F, Prieto M, Salido MP, Madrigal C, Özcan M, Pradíes G. A clinical study assessing the influence of anodized titanium and zirconium dioxide abutments and peri-implant soft tissue thickness on the optical outcome of implant-supported lithium disilicate single crowns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32(1):156-163.
• Steigmann M, Monje A, Chan H-L, Wang H-L. Emergence pro- file design based on implant position in the esthetic zone. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2014;34(4):559-563.
• Chandran Sk, Jaını J, Babu As, Mathew A, Keepanasserıl A. Digital versus conventional impressions in dentistry: A systematic review. J Clin Diagnostic Res 2019;13.