Mandibular Full-Arch Fixed Prostheses Supported on 4 Implants with Either Axial Or Tilted Distal Implants: A 3-Year Prospective Study.

PURPOSE This prospective study evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcome of distally cantilevered 4-implant-supported fixed mandibular prostheses (4-ISFMP) with distal implants either in axial or distally tilted direction. MATERIAL AND METHODS Forty-one mandibulary edentulous patients received acrylic veneered 4-ISFMP with casted framework. Based on distal implant placement direction patients were assigned to 2 groups: 21 patients with four (2 anterior/2 posterior) axial implants (axial-group I) and 20 patients with 2 anterior axial/2 distal tilted implants (tilted-group II). Patients were prospectively followed for 3 years by annual examinations of implants and prosthetic survival rates including assessment for biological and mechanical complications. Additionally, peri-implant marginal bone resorption [MBR], pocket depth [PD], plaque index [PI], bleeding index [BI] and gingival index [GI], and calculus index [CI] were evaluated at each annual follow-up. RESULTS 37/41 patients (19 axial-group I, 18 tilted-group II) and 148/164 implants were followed at the 1-, 2-, and 3-year evaluation (dropout rate: 11.8%) presenting no implant and denture loss (100% survival). The overall, MBR at year 1, 2, and 3 was 1.11 ± 0.4 mm, 1.26 ± 0.42 mm, and 1.40 ± 0.41 mm, respectively, representing a significant (p < .001) continuing time depending annual reduction. MBR and PD did not differ between anterior and posterior regions in both groups or for anterior and posterior regions between the groups. PI and CI were significantly (p < .001) higher for implants in anterior regions than for posterior regions in both groups. Moreover, posterior implant regions showed significantly (p < .001) higher PI and CI for axial-group I than for tilted-group II over time. Biological and mechanical complications as well as GI and BI did not differ between the groups over a 3-year follow-up period. CONCLUSION For clinical implant and prosthesis outcome no statistical significant mean differences were noted for distally cantilevered 4-ISFMP supported by distal implants placed in tilted or axial direction.

[1]  Y. Açil,et al.  Comprehensive Comparison of the 5-Year Results of All-on-4 Mandibular Implant Systems With Acrylic and Ceramic Suprastructures. , 2015, The Journal of oral implantology.

[2]  J. Strub,et al.  The all-on-four treatment concept: a systematic review. , 2014, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[3]  D. Romeo,et al.  Clinical investigation on axial versus tilted implants for immediate fixed rehabilitation of edentulous arches: preliminary results of a single cohort study. , 2014, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[4]  S. Balshi,et al.  A retrospective analysis of 800 Brånemark System implants following the All-on-Four™ protocol. , 2014, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[5]  Ye Lin,et al.  The All-on-Four implant therapy protocol in the management of edentulous Chinese patients. , 2013, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[6]  F. Mussano,et al.  Immediate postextractive dental implant placement with immediate loading on four implants for mandibular-full-arch rehabilitation: a retrospective analysis. , 2013, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[7]  R. Seemann,et al.  Clinical outcome and peri-implant findings of four-implant-supported distal cantilevered fixed mandibular prostheses: five-year results. , 2013, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[8]  M. Esposito,et al.  Immediate loading of 2(all-on-2) versus 4 (all-on-4) implants placed with a flapless technique supporting mandibular cross-arch fixed prostheses: 1-year results from a pilot randomised controlled trial. , 2013, European journal of oral implantology.

[9]  T. Padmanabhan,et al.  Load transfer in tilted implants with varying cantilever lengths in an all-on-four situation. , 2012, Australian dental journal.

[10]  J. Oliva,et al.  All-on-three delayed implant loading concept for the completely edentulous maxilla and mandible: a retrospective 5-year follow-up study. , 2012, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[11]  M. Sanz,et al.  Biological complications and peri-implant clinical and radiographic changes at immediately placed dental implants. A prospective 5-year cohort study. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[12]  P. Branemark,et al.  Assessment of rehabilitation in edentulous patients treated with an immediately loaded complete fixed mandibular prosthesis supported by three implants. , 2012, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[13]  J. Bernard,et al.  Mechanosensation and maximum bite force in edentulous patients rehabilitated with bimaxillary implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[14]  G. Romanos,et al.  A clinical study of edentulous patients rehabilitated according to the "all on four" immediate function protocol. , 2012, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[15]  German O Gallucci,et al.  A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. , 2012, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[16]  G. Grandi,et al.  Immediate loading of four (all-on-4) post-extractive implants supporting mandibular cross-arch fixed prostheses: 18-month follow-up from a multicentre prospective cohort study. , 2012, European journal of oral implantology.

[17]  Hye-Won Cho,et al.  Biomechanical comparison of axial and tilted implants for mandibular full-arch fixed prostheses. , 2011, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[18]  D. Vangi,et al.  Three-dimensional finite element analysis of different implant configurations for a mandibular fixed prosthesis. , 2011, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[19]  O. Jensen,et al.  Buccal to lingual transalveolar implant placement for all on four immediate function in posterior mandible: report of 10 cases. , 2011, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[20]  M. Alikhasi,et al.  Tilted or parallel implant placement in the completely edentulous mandible? A three-dimensional finite element analysis. , 2011, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[21]  P. Maló,et al.  A longitudinal study of the survival of All-on-4 implants in the mandible with up to 10 years of follow-up. , 2011, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[22]  M. Esposito,et al.  Immediate loading of 2 (all-on-2) versus 4 (all-on-4) implants placed with a flapless technique supporting mandibular cross-arch fixed prostheses: preliminary results from a pilot randomised controlled trial. , 2011, European journal of oral implantology.

[23]  O. Jensen,et al.  The all on 4 shelf: mandible. , 2011, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[24]  K. Sakurai,et al.  Influence of number and inclination angle of implants on stress distribution in mandibular cortical bone with All-on-4 Concept. , 2010, Journal of prosthodontic research.

[25]  E. Agliardi,et al.  Immediate rehabilitation of the edentulous jaws with full fixed prostheses supported by four implants: interim results of a single cohort prospective study. , 2010, Clinical oral implants research.

[26]  E. Piehslinger,et al.  Removable implant-prosthodontic rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible: five-year results of different prosthetic anchorage concepts. , 2010, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[27]  Jasson Gryzagoridis,et al.  Stress patterns around distal angled implants in the all-on-four concept configuration. , 2009, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[28]  J. Fiorellini,et al.  Five-year results of fixed implant-supported rehabilitations with distal cantilevers for the edentulous mandible. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[29]  M. Raimondi,et al.  Comparison of tilted versus nontilted implant-supported prosthetic designs for the restoration of the edentuous mandible: a biomechanical study. , 2009, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[30]  German O Gallucci,et al.  Computer-aided design and computer-assisted manufacturing in prosthetic implant dentistry. , 2009, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[31]  S. Taschieri,et al.  Immediate rehabilitation of the mandible with fixed full prosthesis supported by axial and tilted implants: interim results of a single cohort prospective study. , 2008, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[32]  M. J. Mora,et al.  Guidelines for occlusion strategy in implant-borne prostheses. A review. , 2008, International dental journal.

[33]  E. Piehslinger,et al.  Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with a milled bar: a retrospective study. , 2007, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[34]  Massimo Del Fabbro,et al.  Immediate rehabilitation of the completely edentulous jaw with fixed prostheses supported by either upright or tilted implants: a multicenter clinical study. , 2007, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[35]  Bo Rangert,et al.  Tilting of splinted implants for improved prosthodontic support: a two-dimensional finite element analysis. , 2007, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[36]  C. Dawes.  Why does supragingival calculus form preferentially on the lingual surface of the 6 lower anterior teeth? , 2006, Journal.

[37]  George Priest,et al.  Virtual-designed and computer-milled implant abutments. , 2005, Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

[38]  C. Misch,et al.  Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. , 2004, Clinical oral implants research.

[39]  T. Testori,et al.  Immediate occlusal loading of Osseotite implants in the lower edentulous jaw. A multicenter prospective study. , 2004, Clinical oral implants research.

[40]  Ioannis Nikellis,et al.  Immediate loading of 190 endosseous dental implants: a prospective observational study of 40 patient treatments with up to 2-year data. , 2004, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[41]  Niklaus P Lang,et al.  Diagnostic parameters for monitoring peri-implant conditions. , 2004, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[42]  Carlos Aparicio.  Our hopes for the Barcelona consensus. , 2003, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[43]  Miguel Nobre,et al.  "All-on-Four" immediate-function concept with Brånemark System implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. , 2003, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[44]  David R. Cagna,et al.  Early loading of four or five astra tech fixtures with a fixed cross-arch restoration in the mandible , 2003 .

[45]  A. Dasanayake,et al.  Cleansability of and patients' satisfaction with implant-retained overdentures: a retrospective comparison of two attachment methods. , 2002, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[46]  K. Sondell,et al.  Five-year results with fixed complete-arch mandibular prostheses supported by 4 implants. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[47]  B Rangert,et al.  Tilting of posterior mandibular and maxillary implants for improved prosthesis support. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[48]  M. E. McAlarney,et al.  Theoretical cantilever lengths versus clinical variables in fifty-five clinical cases. , 2000, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[49]  R. H. Batenburg,et al.  Radiographic assessment of changes in marginal bone around endosseous implants supporting mandibular overdentures. , 1998, Dento maxillo facial radiology.

[50]  M. E. McAlarney,et al.  Determination of cantilever length-anterior-posterior spread ratio assuming failure criteria to be the compromise of the prosthesis retaining screw-prosthesis joint. , 1996, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[51]  G. Zarb,et al.  The longitudinal effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants. The Toronto Study: peri-implant mucosal response. , 1992, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[52]  N. Lang,et al.  The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. , 1987, Oral microbiology and immunology.

[53]  Mohl Nd,et al.  Anatomy and physiology of the edentulous mouth. , 1977, Dental clinics of North America.

[54]  N. Mohl,et al.  Anatomy and physiology of the edentulous mouth. , 1977, Dental clinics of North America.

[55]  R. Stallard,et al.  Salivary mucoprotein contribution to dental plaque and calculus. , 1966, Periodontics.