Early loading of mandibular full-arch bridges screw retained after 1 week to four to five Monotype implants: 3-year results from a prospective multicentre study

Implant Survival in Immediately Loaded Full-Arch Rehabilitations Following an Anatomical Classification System-A Retrospective Study in 1200 Edentulous Jaws

This retrospective study analyzed implant survival of immediate implant-supported fixed complete denture (IFCD) treatment options (TOs) based on the level of alveolar atrophy (CC). Records of 882 patients receiving a total of 6042 implants at one private referral clinic between 2004 and 2020 were considered. The mean follow-up period was 3.8 ± 2.7 years. Cumulative implant survival rates (CSRs) were analyzed as a function of CCs and TOs according to Mantel-Haenszel and Mantel-Cox. Hazard risk ratios for implant loss were compared using Cox regression. Confounding factors were identified using mixed Cox regression models. The 2- and 5-year CSRs were 98.2% and 97.9%, respectively. Maxillary 2- and 5-year CSRs were lower (97.7% and 97.3%) compared to mandibular CSRs (99.8% and 98.6%) (p = 0.030 and 0.0020, respectively). The CC did not influence CSRs of IFCDs in the mandible (p = 0.1483 and 0.3014, respectively) but only in the maxilla (p = 0.0147 and 0.0111), where CSRs decreased with increasing atrophy. TOs did not statistically differ in terms of survival rate for a given level of alveolar atrophy. The adaption of IFCD treatments to the level of atrophy and patient-specific risk factors can result in high CSRs, even at different levels of bone atrophy.

Survival rates of axial and tilted implants in the rehabilitation of edentulous jaws using the All-on-four™ concept: A systematic review

Aim:

The aim of this review was to evaluate the survival rate of axial and tilted implants in rehabilitation of edentulous jaws using all on four concept.

Setting and Design:

Systematic Review.

Materials and Methods:

A literature review was performed in MEDLINE, PubMed Central (PMC), Google scholar, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Hand searches were conducted of the bibliographic of related journals and systematic reviews. A total of 380 articles were obtained from the intial screening process. Of these articles, 25 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The authors performed evaluation of articles independently as well as data extraction and quality assessment.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Qualitative analysis.

Results:

The major prosthetic complication was the fracture of the acrylic prosthesis. The mean cumulative survival rate of implants (72-132 months) were 94% to 98%. The prosthesis survival rate (12 months) was between 99% to 100%. The averaged bone loss was 1.3 ±0.4 mm (12-60 months). No Significant difference was found between survival rates of axial and tilted implants nor between maxilla and mandible.

Conclusion:

All on four concept can be employed successfully in the edentulous patients with resorbed ridges while improving their quality of life and reducing morbidity. However,randomized clinical trials with large sampling size and long term follow up should be incorporated.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of removable and fixed implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: post-loading implant loss

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review was to analyze post‐loading implant loss for implant‐supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant location (maxilla vs. mandible), implant number per patient, type of prosthesis (removable vs. fixed), and type of attachment system (screw‐retained, ball vs. bar vs. telescopic crown).

Material and methods

A systematic literature search for randomized‐controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies was conducted within PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Quality assessment of the included studies was carried out, and the review was structured according to PRISMA. Implant loss and corresponding 3‐ and 5‐year survival rates were estimated by means of a Poisson regression model with total exposure time as offset.

Results

After title, abstract, and full‐text screening, 54 studies were included for qualitative analyses. Estimated 5‐year survival rates of implants were 97.9% [95% CI 97.4; 98.4] in the maxilla and 98.9% [95% CI 98.7; 99.1] in the mandible. Corresponding implant loss rates per 100 implant years were significantly higher in the maxilla (0.42 [95% CI 0.33; 0.53] vs. 0.22 [95% CI 0.17; 0.27]; P = 0.0001). Implant loss rates for fixed restorations were significantly lower compared to removable restorations (0.23 [95% CI 0.18; 0.29] vs. 0.35 [95% CI 0.28; 0.44]; P = 0.0148). Four implants and a fixed restoration in the mandible resulted in significantly higher implant loss rates compared to five or more implants with a fixed restoration. The analysis of one implant and a mandibular overdenture also revealed higher implant loss rates than an overdenture on two implants. The same (lower implant number = higher implant loss rate) applied when comparing 2 vs. 4 implants and a mandibular overdenture. Implant loss rates for maxillary overdentures on <4 implants were significantly higher than for four implants (7.22 [95% CI 5.41; 9.64] vs. 2.31 [1.56; 3.42]; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Implant location, type of restoration, and implant number do have an influence on the estimated implant loss rate. Consistent reporting of clinical studies is necessary and high‐quality studies are needed to confirm the present results.