## 1 Introduction  
Recently, single-implant restoration has become a common practice in the field of dentistry. The biological success rate of this implant in dentistry is the highest (amounting to more than 90%), higher than any other treatments employed to treat the loss of a natural tooth [1, 2]. However, as the most widely used type of retention in implant prostheses [3, 4], this cement-retained type is still facing various mechanical complications, posing some serious issues such as porcelain fractures, abutment fractures, and, mainly, screw loosening [5, 6]. Dr. [PERSON] stated that about 9.3% of screw loosening occurs in the first five years [7]. Accordingly, this technical issue required that the connection between the implant and abutment be retrievable [8, 9]. By using a retrievable connection/retention method, the internal screw of a two-piece dental implant can easily be retigitened if needed. The retrievability of a cement-retained dental implant is limited. Such a significant force is required to remove the crown that it can permanently damage the crown, the abutment, the internal screw, or the implant itself [10]. Although it is relatively easy to remove temporary cementations since they are designed for temporary use, most of them have a low retention capability. [PERSON] stated that the retention force of a cement implant (both temporary and permanent) decreased after being subjected to mechanical cyclic loading, which is comparable up to 12-months usage; moreover, he demonstrated that the temporary and the permanent cement retention forces decreased up to 27.7% and 44.9% from the initial values, respectively [10]. Several studies have been conducted to increase the retention level of temporary cement. Based on the results of those studies employing various methods such as laser etching, acid etching, sandblasting, oxygen plasma, and other surface treatment methods to modify the surface of the abutment which will increase the retention forces, it is found that there is a positive correlation; the increase in the retention forces ranges from 26.4% to 90.7% [11; 12; 13]. Other than studies on the surface treatment, some other studies have analyzed the effects of geometry modification on the abutment through various axial wall modifications [14; 15; 16], screw access channel modifications [17], the addition of a groove [18], the height of the abutment [19], and the shape [20]. Even though several surface treatments and geometry modifications have proven to have increased the retention significantly, most studies have shown that a cement failure mode leaves some residue in both the implant and the coping. This residue can be categorized as a rough surface to which bacteria can adhere, resulting in a higher possibility of a peri-implant disease [21; 22; 23], making this method impractical. Another way to develop a retrievable dental implant is by using a screw-retained dental implant, which holds a dental crown by using a screw to retrieve it [24]. This screw-retained type is advantageous in that the risk of inflammation in peri-implant tissue is minimal since no cement is used in this connection type [1; 25]. Although this type of crown retention is already available on the market, its price, its aesthetic limitations, and its higher clinical disadvantages than that of the cement-retained implant have made many clinicians prefer a cement-retained implant [26; 27]. Since the screw-retained implant has access that is vertically placed, it compromises aesthetics, and since the access screw occupies at least 50% of the occlusal table, it is difficult to establish ideal occlusal contact (clinical disadvantages) [28; 29]. Lateral screw retention has been developed to avoid occlusal access holes. The lateral screw method can help restore the excessive angulated implant while maintaining retrievability. The cross-pin retained implant-supported restoration requires modification of the abutments.