These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Immediately loaded distally cantilevered fixed mandibular prostheses supported by four implants placed in both in fresh extraction and healed sites: 2-year results from a prospective study.
    Author: Krennmair S, Seemann R, Weinländer M, Krennmair G, Piehslinger E.
    Journal: Eur J Oral Implantol; 2014; 7(2):173-84. PubMed ID: 24977253.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the outcome of immediately loaded distally cantilevered mandibular full-arch prostheses according to the 'all-on-four' concept supported by implants placed in both fresh extraction and healed sites. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective study was conducted in 24 patients with extraction of all remaining mandibular teeth and placement of 4 implants per patient (2 mesial axial and 2 distal tilted) for full-arch mandibular restorations. Implants were inserted in fresh extraction sockets 2.3 ± 1.0 per patient and 1.7 ± 1.0 implants in healed sites. Implants placed in fresh extraction sites (n = 55) were significantly (P <0.01) more deeply inserted than implants (n = 41) placed in healed sites (peri-implant alveolar crest: +1.6 ± 0.8 mm vs +0.6 ± 0.7 mm). Patients received an immediate provisional fixed dental prosthesis and, 3 months later, a definite resin veneered prosthesis with metal framework. At the 12-and 24-month follow-up, patients were evaluated for implants and prosthesis success, for prosthodontic maintenance efforts and patient satisfaction. At both follow-up examinations, peri-implant marginal bone level, implant pocket depth, plaque, bleeding, gingival and calculus indices were evaluated and compared between implants placed in fresh extraction and healed sites. RESULTS: At the 24-month follow-up, no implant failed and all prostheses were stable. There were five fractures of the provisional prosthesis in 5 patients but no fracture of the definite prostheses. For the definite prostheses, 15 acrylic teeth had to be renewed/repaired (in 10 patients) and 18 patients presented the need for the implant-supported prosthesis to be rebased. Peri-implant marginal bone level after 12 and 24 months was -0.18 ± 0.20 mm and -0.40 ± 0.29 mm for all implants (P <0.001) representing bone level differences of 0.35 mm between implants placed in healed and post-extractive sites at both the 1st year (95%-CI:-0.49 to -0.20) and the 2nd year (95%-CI: -0.57 to -0.14) assessment. Plaque (1st year: 1.17 ± 0.48 versus 0.5 ± 0.6; P <0.001; 2nd year: 1.21 ± 0.51 versus 0.55 ± 0.6; P <0.001) and calculus indices (1st year: 0.92 ± 0.28 versus 0.45 ± 0.51; P <0.001; 2nd year: 1.00 ± 0.42 versus 0.5 ± 0.51; P <0.001) were significantly higher for implants placed in fresh extraction than in healed sites. Patients' subjective satisfaction score rating assessed by 5 items was high at the 1- (score: 4.6 ± 0.4) and 2-year evaluation (score: 4.7 ± 0.36). CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this study, immediately loaded full-arch prostheses can be supported by four implants placed simultaneously into healed and fresh extraction sites.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]