Clinical and patient-centered outcomes following rehabilitation of atrophic edentulous maxilla using six implants placed simultaneously with bilateral maxillary sinus augmentation: A retrospective case series

Outcomes that may affect implant and prosthesis survival and complications in maxillary fixed prosthesis supported by four or six implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To investigate whether the clinical and radiographical outcomes are affected when four or six implants support the maxillary fixed complete denture (FCD).

Materials and methods

This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021226432) and followed the PRISMA guidelines. The focused PICO question was, "For an edentulous maxillary patient rehabilitated with an implant-supported fixed prosthesis, do the clinical and radiographical outcomes differ when four or six implants support the prosthesis ". A thorough search of the relevant studies was designed and performed electronically. The survival rate of implant and prosthesis, marginal bone loss, and complications (mechanical and biological) were the primary outcomes, whereas implant distribution and using the surgical guide, follow-up, and framework material were evaluated as secondary outcomes.

Results

Out of 1099 articles initially retrieved, 53 clearly stated the outcomes of interest and were included in this study. There were no significant differences in implant and prosthesis survival, technical/mechanical complications, and biological complications between the 4-implant group (4-IG) and the 6-implant group (6-IG). However, marginal bone loss (MBL) was significantly higher in the 4-IG (p < 0.01). The surgical guide and follow-up period did not significantly affect implant/prosthesis survival. Additionally, using the CAD/CAM milled framework and anteroposterior implant distribution were associated with significantly higher implant survival in the 6-IG (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

The findings of this study indicated that having a greater number of implants, as seen in the 6-implant group, can lead to a decrease in technical and biological complications and reduce marginal bone loss. It is worth noting that factors such as using CAD/CAM frameworks and the anteroposterior distribution of implants were recognized as important in improving implant survival rates when more implants are present.