ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To evaluate, over a 2-year period, the treatment outcomes for maxillary full-arch fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by a combination of both tilted and axially-placed implants and to compare the marginal bone loss (MBL) and implant survival rates (SR) between tilted and axial implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study has been carried out. Thirty-two patients (16 males and 16 females) treated with maxillary full-arch FDPs were included in this retrospective study. A total of 187 implants were inserted to rehabilitate the fully edentulous maxillary arches: 36% of them were tilted (T group, n = 68) and the remaining 64% were axially placed (A group, n = 119). From the total, 28% of the implants (n=53) were immediately loaded with screw-retained provisional acrylic restorations, whereas 72% underwent conventional delayed prosthetic loading 6 months post-operatively. Definitive restorations were hybrid implant prostheses (metal framework covered with high-density acrylic resin) and metal-ceramic screw-retained implant prostheses, and were placed 6 months after surgery. Such definitive restorations were checked for proper function and aesthetics every three months for two years. Peri-implant marginal bone levels were assessed by digital radiographs immediately after surgery and MBL was assessed at definitive implant loading (baseline) and 2 years afterwards. RESULTS: The 2-year implant SR were 100% for axially placed implants and 98.5% for tilted implants. No significant differences were found amongst the A and T implant groups. Marginal bone loss measured at 2 years after definitive prosthetic loading was of -0.73 ± 0.72 mm (maximum MBL of 1.43 mm) for axially positioned implants vs. -0.51 ± 0.92 mm for tilted implants (maximum bone 1.45 mm). Differences in MBL were statistically significant when comparing immediately and delayed loaded implants. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this retrospective clinical study, full-arch fixed prostheses supported by a combination of both tilted and axially placed implants may be considered a predictable and viable treatment modality for the prosthetic rehabilitation of the completely edentulous maxilla
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Dental Implantation, Endosseous/methods , Maxilla/surgery , Retrospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the two-year survival rate (SR) and marginal bone loss (MBL) of fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) supported by straight (S) and tilted (T) implants under the influence of diverse study variables. METHODS: A prospective investigation comprising 21 patients provided with a total of 27 maxillary screw-retained restorations fixed to 70 dental implants was developed. Two groups of implants were considered depending on their inclination with respect to the occlusal plane: Group 1 (S, n=37): straight/axial implants and Group 2 (T, n=33): tilted/angled fixations. Each FDP was supported by a combination of S and T implants. SR and MBL were assessed at the time of loading and two years after surgery. Patient-, surgical- and/or rehabilitation-related information was gathered. Data were statistically analysed at the α=0.05 significance level. RESULTS: After 24 months, a 100% SR was achieved and the MBL of S and T implants were statistically similar. T implants located in the molar region showed lower MBL than did those replacing premolars (p=0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Upright and angled fixations inserted at posterior maxillary areas resulted in comparable survival rates and peri-implant MBL after two years. The marginal bone resorption around tilted implants depended on their location. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Screw-retained restorations fixed to straight and tilted implants seem to be a safe treatment option in posterior atrophic maxillae.
