Fixed full-arch maxillary prostheses supported by four versus six implants with a titanium CAD/CAM milled framework: 3-year multicentre RCT

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate treatment success, patient satisfaction, and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) after rehabilitation of atrophic edentulous maxilla (AEM) with six implants placed simultaneously with bilateral maxillary sinus floor augmentation (MSFA).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The selected patients were fully edentulous with atrophic maxillary posterior residual ridges and rehabilitated with six implants placed simultaneously with bilateral MSFA and immediate All-on-4 provisional fixed prosthesis (PFP). After 7-12 months of implant surgery, all patients have received an All-on-6 definitive fixed prosthesis (DFP). After at least one year of function with DFP, clinical and radiographic examinations were performed. Patient satisfaction was assessed through a visual analog scale (VAS). The OHRQoL before treatment (T0), during provisional (T1), and after definitive prosthesis (T2) was evaluated using OHI-14.

RESULTS

20 maxillary edentulous patients were rehabilitated with 120 implants, 20 immediate All-on-4 PFP, and 20 All-on-6 DFP. Of those, 12 patients have passed at least a year follow-up after DFP insertion and were eligible to be included in the assessment of treatment success. After a mean of 20 (12-36) months follow-up, the implant and prosthesis survival rates were 100%. The success rate at the implant level was 98.6%. The mean marginal bone loss (MBL) was 0.09 ± 0.06 mm. No prosthetic or postoperative complications, and the mean general satisfaction was (91.75 ± 7.06). There was a significant improvement in all OHIP-14 domains during the final All-on-6 prosthesis (T2) (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Rehabilitation of atrophic edentulous maxilla using six implants with simultaneous bilateral MSFA and immediate All-on-4 PFP is a successful treatment approach associated with minimal postoperative complications and significant improvement in OHRQoL.

Maxillary Full Arch Restorations - Biological Complications: A Narrative Review Outlining Criteria for Long Term Success

PURPOSE

Patients receiving full arch implant borne maxillary prostheses require functional, esthetic, and long term success. The importance of this review is to document the difficulty with implant maintenance, the prevalence of peri-implant disease, and the improvement in biologic health when using a prosthesis that can be maintained to minimize plaque. The objective is to provide surgeons with a reference to optimize surgical procedures that can result in improved hygiene and long term maintenance, as well as acceptable functional and esthetic goals.

METHODS

Pubmed.gov was the information source. Years reviewed included 1990-2022. Inclusion criteria included only articles in journals referenced in pubmed.gov. The reports excluded were case reports, reports that only included implant survival, and articles without a statistical analysis to generate meaningful conclusions. Biological complications included bone loss, hygiene difficulty, mucositis and recession, the incidence of peri-implantitis, and how complications related to patient co-morbidities. Data collected included outcomes of the study including statistical significance.

RESULTS

The search identified articles for review using terms which included full arch maxillary restorations (n = 736), long term success with full arch maxillary prostheses (n = 22), ceramic full arch restorations (n = 102), and complications with full arch restorations (n = 231). From this search, 53 articles were collated that satisfied the inclusion criteria. Factors found to be significant contributors to biological complications included bone loss and peri-implant disease, difficulty with daily hygiene access, plaque and biofilm coverage, and the need for continued maintenance for long term implant health.

CONCLUSION

The surgeon needs to place implants to allow a full arch maxillary prosthesis to be fabricated with full access to the implants for maintenance, which should decrease the incidence of biological complications. With excellent maintenance full arch implant restorations can have limited peri-implant disease.

Comparison of 4‐ or 6‐implant supported immediate full‐arch fixed prostheses: A retrospective cohort study of 217 patients followed up for 3–13 years

PURPOSE

Choosing four or six implants to support immediate full-arch fixed prostheses (FAFPs) is still controversial worldwide. This study aims to analyze and compare the long-term results of All-on-4 and All-on-6.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study enrolled 217 patients rehabilitated with 1222 implants supporting 271 FAFPs, including 202 prostheses supported by 4 implants (All-on-4 group) and 69 prostheses supported by 6 implants (All-on-6 group), and followed up for 3-13 years. Implant survival, prosthesis survival, complications, and implant marginal bone loss (MBL) were evaluated and compared between two groups. Patient characteristics including age, gender, jaw, opposite dentition condition, smoking habit, bruxism, bone quantity and quality, cantilever length (CL), prosthesis material, and oral hygiene were analyzed to assess their influence on the clinical results of the two groups. Six surgeons and three prosthodontists who performed FAFPs more than 5 years were invited for questionnaires, to assess patient- and clinician-related influences on implant number.

RESULT

In general, All-on-4 group indicated no significant difference with All-on-6 group in the implant survival (implant-level: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.0 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8-1.2], P = 0.96; prosthesis-level: HR = 0.8 [95% CI: 0.3-1.8], P = 0.54), prosthesis survival (odds ratio [OR] = 0.8 [95% CI: 0.3-2.8], P = 0.56), biological complications (OR = 0.9 [95% CI: 0.5-1.8], P = 0.78), technical complications of provisional prosthesis (OR = 1.3 [95% CI: 0.7-2.3], P = 0.42), technical complications of definitive prosthesis (OR = 1.1 [95% CI: 0.6-2.2], P = 0.33) and the 1st, 5th, and 10th year MBL (P = 0.65, P = 0.28, P = 0.14). However, for specific covariates, including elderly patients, opposing natural/fixed dentition, smoking, bruxism, long CL, low bone density, and all acrylic provisional prostheses, All-on-6 was more predictable in some clinical measurements than All-on-4. The implant prosthodontists and the medium-experienced clinicians showed significant preference for All-on-6 (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Based on this study, the long-term clinical results showed no significant difference between All-on-4 and All-on-6 groups in general. However, for some specific characteristics, All-on-6 seemed to be more predictable in some clinical measurements than All-on-4. For the clinicians' decision-making, medium-experienced clinicians and the implant prosthodontists showed significant preference for All-on-6.