Abstract
Objectives The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare digital and traditional prosthetic workflow for posterior maxillary restorations supported by an upright and a distally tilted implant at 3-year follow-up. Materials and Methods Twenty-four patients were treated in the posterior maxilla with 24 immediately loaded axial and 24 distally tilted implants supporting 3-unit or 4-unit screw-retained prostheses. Three months after initial loading patients were randomly stratified into two groups: definitive traditional impressions were carried out in the control group, while digital impressions were performed in the test group. The framework-implant connection accuracy was evaluated by means intraoral digital radiographs at 3, 6, 12, and 36 months of follow-up examinations. Outcome considerations comprised implant and prosthetic survival and success rates, marginal bone level changes, and required clinical time to take impressions. Results A total of 24 patients received immediately loaded screw-retained prostheses supported by an upright and a distally tilted implant (total 48 implants). No implant dropouts occurred, showing an overall survival rate of 100% for both groups. None of the 24 fixed prostheses were lost during the observation period (prosthetic survival rate of 100%). No statistically significant differences in marginal bone loss were found between control and test groups. The digital impression procedure required on average less clinical time than the conventional procedure. Conclusions Clinical and radiologic results suggest that digital impression is a predictable procedure for posterior maxillary restorations supported by an upright and a distally tilted implant.
Highlights
IntroductionDifferent treatments have been proposed: short implants [2], crest augmentation [3], bone grafting and sinus elevation with crestal [4] or lateral approach [5], implants placed in pterygoid process [6], tuber [7], or zygoma [8]
Rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla represents a challenge for both patients and clinicians, due to bone resorption and maxillary sinus pneumatisation [1].Different treatments have been proposed: short implants [2], crest augmentation [3], bone grafting and sinus elevation with crestal [4] or lateral approach [5], implants placed in pterygoid process [6], tuber [7], or zygoma [8]
The implant survival rate was 100%, while none of the 24 prostheses were lost during the observation period
Summary
Different treatments have been proposed: short implants [2], crest augmentation [3], bone grafting and sinus elevation with crestal [4] or lateral approach [5], implants placed in pterygoid process [6], tuber [7], or zygoma [8]. These procedures exhibit increased surgical and aesthetic risks as well as postsurgical morbidity. This surgical technique could allow for the insertion of longer implants engaging three cortical layers, while coronal and apical part of implant might find anchorage in native bone with high level of primary stability
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
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