Abstract

BackgroundThis study assessed retrospectively the clinical outcomes of single implant-supported crowns and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs).MethodsThis case series compared biological and technical complications in single implant-supported crowns and implant-supported bridges in a time framed sample of all patients who received dental implants between 2009 and 2016 in Dubai Health Authority. Only 3-unit implant-supported prostheses (FDPs) with one intervening pontic and an implant each end were included for comparison to single crown supported implants. Cantilevered implants, implant-supported dentures and cases involving bone grafts or sinus lifts were excluded. The primary outcome measure was marginal bone loss, measured on digital radiographs taken after prosthesis placement at baseline and one year after implant loading, whilst peri-implantitis and technical complications were secondary outcomes. Mixed regression models adjusted for clustering of implants within patients was used for patient and implant factor associations.ResultsA total of 454 patients (152 males; 302 females) had 1673 implants. The mean age of males (53.7 years, SD 14.6) was significantly greater than females (49.3 years, SD 12.9, p < 0.001). Mean mesial bone loss on the FDPs was significantly greater at 1 year (1.14 mm, SD 0.63) compared with the mesial surface of single implant-supported crowns (0.30 mm, SD 0.43, p < 0.001). Mean distal bone loss was also significantly greater at 1 year on the distal surfaces of implants supporting bridgework (1.29 mm, SD 0.71) compared with distal surfaces on single implant-supported crowns (0.36 mm, SD 0.54, p < 0.001). Mean marginal bone loss mesially and distally around implants placed in the lower anterior sextant was significantly greater compared to all other sites (p < 0.001). Bone loss by gender, patient’s age and medical condition was not different between the 2 implant groups. Screw loosening was the main technical complication (11.5%) whilst peri-implantitis occurred rarely (0.5%). The 66 cement retained implants had significantly more complications compared to the 1607 screw retained implants (p < 0.001).ConclusionsMean marginal bone loss around the supporting implants of FDPs (3-unit fixed bridgework) was greater than on single implant-supported crowns at one year after implant loading. Position in the mouth was associated with bone loss. Biological and technical complications occurred rarely.

Highlights

  • This study assessed retrospectively the clinical outcomes of single implant-supported crowns and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)

  • Prosthodontic complications and peri-implantitis were the lowest in the FDP group with a significant three-fold increased risk of implant related complications in the 3 adjacent nonsplinted single implant crowns compared to implantsupported bridges [5]

  • Case type was dichotomised into single implant crown or implant-supported dental prosthesis (FDP)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This study assessed retrospectively the clinical outcomes of single implant-supported crowns and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). The survival and/or complications of single implant-supported crowns have been compared to implant-supported bridges (fixed dental prostheses) and reviewed systematically [1]. Studies have compared biological and prosthetic complications of implantsupported crowns with tooth supported prostheses but few studies have compared single implant-supported crowns with the 3-unit fixed–fixed implant-supported bridge or FDP (fixed dental prosthesis). A recent systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that implant-supported 3-unit FDPs had survival rates no different to those of tooth-supported 3-unit FDPs [4]. One study has directly compared 3 adjacent single implant-supported crowns (non-splinted), 3 adjacent splinted (connected) implant-supported crowns and 3-unit implant-supported FDPs with one intervening pontic [5]. The non-splinted and splinted crowns had worse survival than 3-unit FDPs, termed implantsupported bridges in the study [5]. The rationale for splinting has been questioned in light of recent developments in dental implant design, implant surface properties and improved surgical techniques [8,9,10]

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call