Complications of the implant-supported posterior mandibularsingle restorations with mesial cantilever

PURPOSE: This retrospective study was performed to analyze the relationship between complications of the posterior mandibular single crowns and distance from the adjacent teeth to the implant. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Of the patients who presented Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital and Yonsei University Dental Hospital with missing of the posterior mandibular molar and restored with implant-supported 18 Single crowns between 1996 thru 2007, 115 patients had been followed after crown delivery. The subjects were divided into complication-followed group and a control without any problems. The distance from the most distal tooth to the implant were measured. The prosthetic and biologic complications were reviewed by the cantilever distance and analyzed by abutment type, age and gender statistically using SAS version 9.1 (SAS Inc., USA). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION The results were as follows; 1) The posterior mandibular single crown with cantilever showed higher incidence of follow-up complications upon logistic analysis (p<0.05). 2) The prosthetic and biologic complications are related with the cantilever distance with 2.1 odds ratio and 3.39 cut-off value of specificity and sensitivity by SPSS 12.0. 3) The complications are neither significant in abutment types nor age and gender.

The Comparison between the success rates of single implants replacing the mandibular first and second molar / 대한치주과학회지

Osseointegrated implnats have proven to be successful in both full and partial edentulous patients since the 1960s and recently have shown successful results when used to restore single tooth missing. However, in most studies reporting the success of single implants, single implants replacing anterior teeth are more frequently mentioned than posterior single implants. Moreover, in studies regarding posterior single implants, the replaced region seemed to be variable; the maxilla, mandible and areas from the first premolar to the second molar were mentioned. However, considering the difference in bone quality in the mandible and maxilla, and the increased occlusal force in the posterior region, the success rates in each region may be different. In this study, the cumulative success rates and amount of bone loss of single implants replacing the mandibular first and second molar, respectively, were compared and analyzed to come to the following conclusion. 1. The 20 (20 persons) single implants that were placed in the mandibular first molar region were all successful and showed a 100% 5 year cumulative success rate. Among the 27 (24 persons) single implants replacing the mandibular second molar, 8 failed (27.63%) showing a 5 year cumulative success rate of 70.37%. 2. Among the 8 failed implants, one showed symptoms of postoperative infection and one complained of parenthesia. 6 implants failed after functional loading; 5 showed mobility and one resulted in fixture fracture. 3. After the attachment of the prosthesis, there was no significant statistical difference regarding the marginal bone loss in group 1 and group 2 during the checkup period (P>0.05). In conclusion, restoration of the mandibular first molar using single implants was found to be an excellent treatment modality, and when replacing mandibular second molars with single implants, poor bone quality and risk of overloading must be considered.