 Corresponding author: Michael Josef Kridanto Kamadjaja Departement of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia. Copyright © 2022 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Liscense 4.0. Screw-retained implant-supported crowns: An option of prosthetic restoration Michael Josef Kridanto Kamadjaja * , Jennifer Widjaja and Bambang Agustono Satmoko Tumali Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia. World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews, 2022, 13(02), 299–303 Publication history: Received on 07 January 2022; revised on 10 Februay 2022; accepted on 12 Februay 2022 Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2022.13.2.0144 Abstract This paper shows the clinical steps for preparing a screw-retained crown for the restoration of a single implant. A 66- year-old female patient came to the clinic wanted to replace partial edentulous after extraction of 24 and 25. Patient wanted to have implant treatment with fixed restoration because he had experienced with the same treatment before in another regions Impression-taking using open-tray technique and delivery of the crown is presented in a step-by- step manner elucidated by detailed photographs. Furthermore, the advantages and disadvantages of screw-retained crowns are discussed in comparison with the cemented restorations. Keywords: Retrievability; Screw-retained crown; Dental implant; Medicine 1. Introduction The use of implant-supported single crowns has become a well-established and preferred approach to compensate for missing single teeth [1]. There are two different types of prosthetic restorations fixed on dental implants: Screw- retained and cemented restorations. The choice of method is usually based on the clinician's preference [2]. Retrievability is the main advantage of screw-retained crowns that would make it more favorable to many clinicians [3]. It allows better control on the hygiene of the implants and surrounding mucosa, also, crowns can be easily repaired in case of crown fracture.[4] On the other hand, cases when the access hole is on the incisal edges or cusps teeth or easier access to the posterior area of the mouth is needed, cemented crown restorations could be more practical [4,5]. During the life of an implant prosthesis, the clinician may need to remove the restoration for hygiene, repairs and abutment screw tightening, and screw-retained designs make all of these procedures easily achievable. Screw-retained restorations, however, require precise implant placement for optimal location of the screw access hole; deviations from the optimal position and angulation can lead to an unaesthetic restoration. Many clinicians have emphasized the advantages of the cement-retained prosthesis, including its greater versatility for aesthetics and simplicity of the technique. Another advantage might be the potential for complete passivity when a cemented restoration is placed on the implants. The absence of a screw to draw inadequately fitting components together with a clamping force would be likely to eliminate strain that the tightening force of the screw would introduce into the restoration/implant assembly. This potential advantage, together with the others mentioned, has made cement-retained implant restorations increasingly popular. 2. Case A 66-year-old female patient came to the clinic who wanted to replace partial edentulous after extraction of 24 and 25. This patient wanted fixed restoration in order to eat and chew well and expected high aesthetic results. This patient had experienced using implants to replace teeth loss in other regions. In this case, the patient lost her first and second