Will implants with a fixed dental prosthesis in the molar region enhance the longevity of teeth adjacent to distal free-end edentulous spaces?

Survival time analysis of remaining teeth following replacement of unilateral free-end missing teeth: A comparison between fixed implant-supported prostheses and removable partial dentures

OBJECTIVES

This retrospective study aimed to investigate the differences in tooth loss rate between fixed implant-supported prostheses (FISPs) and removable partial dentures (RPDs) in cases of unilateral free-end missing teeth.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data of 324 patients who underwent treatment with FISPs or RPDs for unilateral free-end missing teeth and satisfied the applicable criteria, were evaluated (47 in the FISPs group and 277 in the RPDs group). After propensity score (PS) matching, which was used to extract patients with similar background factors related to prosthetic selection at baseline, survival time analyses were performed with tooth loss as the endpoint. The adjusted variables were age, sex, number of restored teeth, periodontal status, and the practicing dentist's experience in years. The remaining teeth were classified into subcategories in relation to the missing molars.

RESULTS

Overall, 58 patients (29 in each group) selected by PS matching were evaluated in the final analysis. The total number of lost teeth was 35 (FISPs group: n = 10; RPDs group: n = 25). The mean (±SD) period to tooth loss and the 10-year survival rates in the FISPs and RPDs groups were 51.6 (±30.1) months and 42.3 (±29.7) months, 70.5% and 16.4%, respectively. The log-rank test showed that significantly longer survival time in FISPs compared with RPDs.

CONCLUSIONS

After adjustments for confounding factors using PS matching, replacing unilateral free-end missing teeth with FISPs may exhibit a lower tooth loss rate in adjacent and contralateral teeth compared to replacing with RPDs.

Effect of dental implant therapy on the preservation of orofacial tissues: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Fundamentally, this review addresses the following question: In partially or fully edentulous patients, do implant-supported dental prostheses preserve orofacial tissues when compared to conventional prostheses or no therapy?

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted according to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. Electronic searches were conducted at PubMed and Embase databases followed by manual search. Clinical studies comparing the effect of implant-supported prostheses with conventional rehabilitation or no treatment on alveolar bone resorption, remaining teeth, and jaw muscle thickness were considered for inclusion. A qualitative synthesis was conducted with all included studies, and data from selected studies were pooled quantitatively to perform a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies were selected for analysis. Six studies reported on the effect of implant therapy on alveolar bone resorption (n = 453), six on the remaining teeth (n = 1014), while four studies evaluated masseter muscle thickness (n = 158). The results of the meta-analyses assessing alveolar bone resorption in the posterior mandible and in the anterior area of the maxilla, both fixed and random effects models, yielded no benefit of rehabilitation with implant-supported prostheses when compared to conventional prostheses. For masseter bone thickness, however, a significant benefit for implant-supported prosthesis was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis were unable to unequivocally answer the focus question. There are some indicators of the benefit of implant-supported prostheses over conventional prostheses or no therapy in preserving orofacial tissues, particularly for masseter muscle thickness. However, the evidence is still insufficient to confirm such perception.

Effect of the implant apical exposure and coverage < or ≥ 2 mm bone graft on transcrestal sinus floor elevation: a 1- to 7-year retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to analyze the effect of the apex coverage by the bone graft, including exposure and coverage less than or greater than 2 mm on implant survival rate and peri-implant bone and soft tissue remodeling.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 264 implants in 180 patients who had undergone transcrestal sinus floor elevation (TSFE) with simultaneous implant placement were included in this retrospective cohort study. Radiographic assessment was used to categorize the implants into three groups based on apical implant bone height (ABH): ≤ 0 mm, < 2 mm, or ≥ 2 mm. The implant survival rate, peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) during short-term (1-3 years) and mid- to long-term (4-7 years) follow-up, and clinical parameters were used to evaluate the effect of implant apex coverage after TSFE.

RESULTS

Group 1 had 56 implants (ABH ≤ 0 mm), group 2 had 123 implants (ABH > 0 mm, but < 2 mm), and group 3 had 85 implants (ABH ≥ 2 mm). There was no significant difference in the implant survival rate between groups 2 and 3 compared to group 1 (p = 0.646, p = 0.824, respectively). The MBL during short-term and mid- to long-term follow-up indicated that apex coverage could not be considered a risk factor. Furthermore, apex coverage did not have a significant effect on other clinical parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite limitations, our study found that implant apex coverage by the bone graft, including exposure and coverage levels less than or greater than 2 mm, did not significantly affect implant survival, short-term or mid- to long-term MBL, or peri-implant soft tissue outcomes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Based on 1- to 7-year data, the study suggests that implant apical exposure and coverage levels of less than or greater than 2 mm bone graft are both valid options for TSFE cases.