Evaluation of the Clinical Success of Implant - Supported Restorations- A Retrospective Study with at Least Two Years of Follow-up

Objective: This retrospective clinical study aimed to investigate the long-term clinical success of dental implants restored with splinted or non-splinted posterior prostheses with different retention systems. Materials and Methods: Fifty patients who had undergone dental implant surgery and prosthesis treatment and had a follow-up period of at least 2 years were included in this study. Marginal bone loss was measured from the surrounding bone levels on the mesial and distal surfaces of the implants using a millimetre ruler on panoramic radiographs. The plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were also measured. The Mann-Whitney U test and ANOVA test were used for statistical analysis. Results: The mean values of mesial and distal bone loss were 0.72±0.81 and 0.62±0.58, respectively. The correlation coefficient between mesial and distal bone loss was 0.431; thus, a significant difference was found (p0.05). Conclusion: Clinically, given the long-term maintenance of soft and hard tissue health, successful results can be achieved with a two-member fixed prosthetic rehabilitation plan on two implants.

İmplant Destekli Restorasyonların Klinik Başarısının Değerlendirilmesi: En Az İki Yıllık Takip ile Restrospektif Çalışma

Amaç: Bu retrospektif klinik çalışma, posterior bölgedeki farklı retansiyon sistemlerine sahip splintli veya tek başına planlanan protetik tedavinin dental implantların uzun vadeli klinik başarısına etkisini değerlendirmektedir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışmaya, dental implant cerrahisi ve sonrasında protetik tedavi uygulanan ve en az iki yıllık takip süresi olan 50 hasta dahil edildi. Marjinal kemik kaybı, panoramik radyografiler üzerinde milimetrik bir cetvel kullanılarak implantların mezial ve distal yüzeylerini çevreleyen kemik seviyeleri göz önüne alınarak değerlendirildi. Ayrıca plak indeksi (PI), diş eti indeksi (GI) ve sondalama sırasında kanama (BOP) değerleri kaydedildi. İstatistiksel analiz için Mann-Whitney U testi ve ANOVA testi kullanıldı. Bulgular: Mezial ve distal kemik kaybı ortalamaları sırasıyla 0,72±0,81 ve 0,62±0,58 bulundu. Mezial ve distal kemik kaybı arasındaki korelasyon katsayısı 0,431 olduğu için istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark olduğu sonucuna varıldı (p0,05). Sonuç: Klinik olarak, yumuşak ve sert doku sağlığının uzun süreli idamesi göz önüne alındığında iki implant üzerine planlanan iki üyeli sabit protetik rehabilitasyon ile başarılı sonuçların elde edilebileceği düşünülmektedir.

PDF

___

1. Carpentieri J, Greenstein G, Cavallaro J. Hierarchy of restorative space required for different types of dental implant prostheses. J Am Dent Assoc 2019; 150: 695-706.

2. Gupta R, Gupta N, Weber KK. Dental Implants. 2020 Aug 11. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020 Jan.

3. Renvert S, Persson GR, Pirih FQ, Camargo PM. Peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis: Case definitions and diagnostic considerations. J Periodontol 2018; 89: 304-12.

4. Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. St. Louis: Mosby, 2007: 77-9.

5. von Stein-Lausnitz M, Nickenig HJ, Wolfart S, Neumann K, von Stein-Lausnitz A, Spies BC, et al. Survival rates and complication behaviour of tooth implant-supported, fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2019; 88: 103167.

6. Gomes GH, Misawa MYO, Fernandes C, Pannuti CM, Saraiva L, Huynh-Ba G, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the survival rate of implants placed in previously failed sites. Braz Oral Res 2018; 32: 27.

7. Berglundh T PL, Klinge B. A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years. J Clin Periodontol 2002; 29: 197-212.

8. Daubert DM, Weinstein BF, Bordin S, Leroux BG, Flemming TF. Prevalence and predictive factors for peri-implant disease and implant failure: a cross-sectional analysis. J Periodontol 2015; 86: 337-47.

9. Berglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo MG, Avila-Ortiz G, Blanco J, Camargo PM, et al. Peri-implant diseases and conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Periodontol 2018; 89: 313-8.

10. Jivraj S. Screw versus cemented implant restorations: The decision-making process. J Dent Implant 2018; 8: 9-19.

11. Agar JR, Cameron SM, Hughbanks JC, Parker MH. Cement removal from restorations luted to titanium abutments with simulated subgingival margins. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78: 43-7.

12. Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Linkeviciene L, Maslova N, Puriene A. The influence of the cementation margin position on the amount of undetected cement. A prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 71-6.

13. Sılness J, Loe H. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. II. correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condtion. Acta Odontol Scand 1964; 22: 121-35.

14. Loe H, Silness J. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. I. prevalence and severity. Acta Odontol Scand 1963; 21: 533-51.

15. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90: 121-32.

16. Jivraj S, Chee W. Treatment planning of implants in the aesthetic zone. Br Dent J 2006; 201: 77-89.

17. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986; 1: 11-25.

18. Frost HM. Bone “mass” and the “mechanostat”: a proposal. Anat Rec 1987; 219: 1-9.

19. Carter DR, Fyhrie DP, Whalen RT. Trabecular bone density and loading history: regulation of connective tissue biology by mechanical energy. J Biomech 1987; 20: 785-94.

20. Lee CT, Huang YW, Zhu L, Weltman R. Prevalences of periimplantitis and peri-implant mucositis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2017; 62: 1-12.

21. Vélez J, Peláez J, López-Suárez C, Agustín-Panadero R, Tobar C, Suárez MJ. Influence of Implant Connection, Abutment Design and Screw Insertion Torque on Implant-Abutment Misfit. J Clin Med 2020; 9: 2365.

22. Shi JY, Xu FY, Zhuang LF, Gu YX, Qiao SC, Lai HC. Long-term outcomes of narrow diameter implants in posterior jaws: A retrospective study with at least 8-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29: 76-81.

23. Misch CE. Short dental implants: a literature review and rationale for use. Dent Today 2005; 24: 64-6.

24. Mendonça JA, Francischone CE, Senna PM, Matos de Oliveira AE, Sotto-Maior BS. A retrospective evaluation of the survival rates of splinted and non-splinted short dental implants in posterior partially edentulous jaws. J Periodontol 2014; 85: 787-94.

25. Alrabiah M, Al Deeb M, Alsahhaf A, AlFawaz YF, Al-Aali KA, Vohra F, et al. Clinical and radiographic assessment of narrow-diameter and regular-diameter implants in the anterior and posterior jaw: 2 to 6 years of follow-up. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2020; 50: 97- 105.

26. Al-Aali KA, ArRejaie AS, Alrahlah A, AlFawaz YF, Abduljabbar T, Vohra F. Clinical and radiographic peri-implant health status around narrow diameter implant-supported single and splinted crowns. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21: 386-90.

27. Vigolo P, Mutinelli S, Zaccaria M, Stellini E. Clinical evaluation of marginal bone level change around multiple adjacent implants restored with splinted and nonsplinted restorations: a 10-year randomized controlled trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30: 411-8.

28. Becker K, Mihatovic I, Golubovic V, Schwarz F. Impact of abutment material and dis-/re-connection on soft and hard tissue changes at implants with platform-switching. J Clin Periodontol 2012; 39: 774-80.

29. Canullo L, Bignozzi I, Cocchetto R, Cristalli MP, Iannello G. Immediate positioning of a definitive abutment versus repeated abutment replacements in post-extractive implants: 3-year follow-up of a randomised multicentre clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2010; 3: 285-96.

30. Iglhaut G, Becker K, Golubovic V, Schliephake H, Mihatovic I. The impact of dis-/reconnection of laser microgrooved and machined implant abutments on soft- and hard-tissue healing. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 391-7.

31. Rodríguez X, Vela X, Méndez V, Segalà M, Calvo-Guirado JL, Tarnow DP. The effect of abutment dis/reconnections on periimplant bone resorption: a radiologic study of platform-switched and non-platform-switched implants placed in animals. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 305-11.

32. Brägger U. Use of radiographs in evaluating success, stability and failure in implant dentistry. Periodontol 2000 1998; 17: 77-88.

33. Albrektsson T, Zarb GA. Current interpretations of the osseointegrated response: clinical significance. Int J Prosthodont 1993; 6: 95-105.

34. Malmstrom H, Gupta B, Ghanem A, Cacciato R, Ren Y, Romanos GE. Success rate of short dental implants supporting single crowns and fixed bridges. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 1093- 8.

35. Weber HP, Kim DM, Ng MW, Hwang JW, Fiorellini JP. Peri-implant soft-tissue health surrounding cement- and screw-retained implant restorations: a multi-center, 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17: 375-9.