Does the natural maxillary dentition influence the survival rate of mandibular metal-resin implant-supported fixed complete dentures? A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Consensus is lacking regarding the influence of the maxillary dentition on the survival rate of a mandibular metal-resin implant-supported fixed complete denture (MRISFCD) with distal cantilevers.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify whether an opposing natural dentition influences the survival rate of mandibular MRISFCDs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was performed up to February 2018 from MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, BBO/LILACS databases and also in the non-peer-reviewed literature through Open Grey. Clinical studies regarding natural (ND), removable prostheses (RP), and complete fixed maxillary implant dentitions (ID) with at least a year of follow-up were included. The quality of the included studies was analyzed, and the risk of bias was reported. A meta-analysis comparing the survival rate of ND with RP and ND with ID was performed with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%, and heterogeneity was tested by an I² index. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to determine the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

From a total of 112 ND, 69 ID, and 204 RP in the maxillary dentition, the overall prevalence of failures was 5.4% (6/112; 95% CI [2.3 to 10.76]) for ND, 13.99% (20/69; 95% CI [0.77 to 39.41]) for ID, and 4.9% (10/204; 95% CI [0.69 to 12.18]) for RP. No statistical differences were detected in the success rates between ND and RP (risk difference = 0.00 [-0.06, 0.06]; P=.93; I²=27%) or between ND and ID (risk difference=0.00 [-0.06, 0.07]; P=.97; I²=0%), both with moderate evidence.

CONCLUSION

With a moderate certainty of evidence, it is suggested that natural maxillary dentitions do not affect the survival rate of mandibular MRISFCDs differently from other prosthetic designs.

The influence of prosthetic material on implant and prosthetic survival of implant-supported fixed complete dentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Evaluating the impact of the prosthetic material on implant- and prosthetic survival of implant-supported fixed complete dentures.

STUDY SELECTION

Electronic and hand searches were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) to identify clinical studies including at least 10 patients restored with implant-supported dentures. The primary outcome was to evaluate the implant survival rate according to the applied restorative materials. The prosthetic survival rate was evaluated as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-one of 2254 studies were finally selected. A statistically significant difference (p = 0.0337) was found between implant survival rates in the main restorative groups (metal-ceramic:97%(95%CI [0.96;0.98]), all-ceramic:99%(95%CI [0.98;1.00]), metal-resin:97%(95%CI [0.96;0.98])). Prosthetic survival rates were: (metal-ceramic:95%(95%CI [0.89;0.97]), all-ceramic:97%(95%CI [0.92;0.99]), metal-resin:97%(95%CI [0.95;0.98]), with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.3796) between the groups. Chipping incidence rates were as follows: metal-ceramic:8%(95%CI[0.03;0.20]), all-ceramic:15%(95%CI [0.06;0.32]), and metal-resin:22%(95%CI [0.13;0.33]). Five types of exact restorative materials were identified (porcelain-fused-to-non-precious alloy, porcelain-fused-to-zirconia, precious-metal-acrylic-resin, non-precious-metal-acrylic resin, and PMMA). Again, implant survival rates were statistically significantly influenced by the applied restorative materials (p = 0.0126), whereas, no significant differences were reported regarding prosthetic survival rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Prosthetic material selection seems to have no clinically relevant influence on implant- and prosthetic survival rate in implant-supported fixed complete dentures. Due to the high chipping rate, quantifying prosthetic survival alone does not seem to be a reliable tool for evaluating the outcome of the restorations and providing recommendations. These results, along with the obvious lack of evidence, suggest that clinicians must exercise caution whenever porcelain-fused-to-zirconia or metal-resin restorations are considered.

Immediate and delayed loading of two-piece reduced-diameter implants with locator-analog attachments in edentulous mandibles: One-year results from a randomized clinical trial examining clinical outcome and patient expectation

BACKGROUND

Prosthetic management of thin alveolar ridges in the edentulous mandibles of elderly patients, especially the time of loading, the number of implants needed, and patient expectations and perception, is a challenge in implant dentistry.

PURPOSE

Survival of conventionally and immediately loaded 2-piece reduced-diameter implants in the interforaminal region of the edentulous mandible supporting locator-analog attachments was evaluated. Prosthetic complications and peri-implant hygiene were also studied, and patient expectation and subjective evaluation of the treatment were documented.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-five patients with adapted complete dentures received 4 reduced-diameter implants. All anterior implants were immediately loaded. Three months later, patients were allocated by randomization to 1 of 2 treatment groups: 2 locator-analog attachments on the anterior implants (Group A); or 4 locator-analog attachments (Group B). After another 3 months patient allocation was changed (crossover design) for the next 3 months. Questionnaires with Likert scales and numeric rating scales were used to assess patients' expectations and subjective overdenture-related variables, respectively.

RESULTS

One implant was lost in the immediate-loading group. Survival was 98% and 100% for immediate and delayed loading, respectively. During 12-month observation, 8 complications required aftercare. At the beginning of treatment, patients' expectations were highly positive. Subjective assessment of overdenture-related variables 3 months after immediate loading of 2 implants revealed a statistically significant improvement for most of the variables studied; this was maintained 1 year later. In the subjective assessments, there were no statistically significant differences between Groups A and B.

CONCLUSION

Immediate loading of reduced-diameter implants supporting locator-analog attachments resulted in high implant survival, few prosthetic complications, good oral hygiene, and improvement of subjective denture perception in the short-term. It might be a promising treatment option, especially for elderly patients with a narrow mandibular ridge.

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.

Systematic review of short- (5-10 years) and long-term (10 years or more) survival and success of full-arch fixed dental hybrid prostheses and supporting implants

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the short-term (5-10 year mean follow-up) and long-term (10 year or more) survival and success of fixed full arch dental hybrid prosthesis and supporting dental implants.

METHODS

Studies reporting interventions with full-arch fixed dental hybrid prostheses were identified by searching PubMed/Medline (NCBI), Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), the Cochrane Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (EBSCO), and Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source (DOSS; EBSCO) from the earliest available dates through July 17, 2013. Through a series of review process by two examiners, potentially qualifying studies were identified and assessed with respect to the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies were included for the quality assessment and the systematic review. Within the limitation of available studies, high short-term survival rates of full arch fixed dental hybrid prostheses (93.3-100%) and supporting implants (87.89-100%) were found. However, the availability of studies investigating long-term outcomes seemed scarce. Furthermore, the included studies were subjected to potential sources of bias (i.e. publication, reporting, attrition bias).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite seemingly high short-term survival, long-term survival of implant supported full arch fixed dental hybrid prosthesis could not be determined due to limited availability of true long-term studies. Although it may be a valuable option for a patient with a completely edentulous ridge(s), the strategic removal of teeth with satisfactory prognosis for the sake of delivering an implant supported full-arch dental hybrid prosthesis should be avoided.

Implant and prosthodontic survival rates with implant fixed complete dental prostheses in the edentulous mandible after at least 5 years: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The treatment of mandibular edentulism with implant fixed complete dental prostheses (IFCDPs) is a routinely used treatment option.

PURPOSE

The study aims to report the implant and prosthodontic survival rates associated with IFCDPs for the edentulous mandible after an observation period of a minimum 5 years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic MEDLINE/PubMED search was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials and prospective studies with IFCDPs for the edentulous mandible. Clinical studies with at least 5-year follow-up were selected. Pooled data were statistically analyzed and cumulative implant- and prosthesis survival rates were calculated by meta-analysis, regression, and chi-square statistics. Implant-related and prosthesis-related factors were identified and their impact on survival rates was assessed.

RESULTS

Seventeen prospective studies, including 501 patients and 2,827 implants, were selected for meta-analysis. The majority of the implants (88.5% of all placed implants) had been placed in the interforaminal area. Cumulative implant survival rates for rough surface ranged from 98.42% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 97.98-98.86) (5 years) to 96.86% (95% CI: 96.00-97.73) (10 years); smooth surface implant survival rates ranged from 98.93% (95% CI: 98.38-99.49) (5 years) to 97.88% (95% CI: 96.78-98.98) (10 years). The prosthodontic survival rates for 1-piece IFCDPs ranged from 98.61% (95% CI: 97.80-99.43) (5 years) to 97.25% (95% CI: 95.66-98.86) (10 years).

CONCLUSION

Treatment with mandibular IFCDPs yields high implant and prosthodontic survival rates (more than 96% after 10 years). Rough surface implants exhibited cumulative survival rates similar to the smooth surface ones (p > .05) in the edentulous mandible. The number of supporting implants and the antero-posterior implant distribution had no influence (p > .05) on the implant survival rate. The prosthetic design and veneering material, the retention type, and the loading protocol (delayed, early, and immediate) had no influence (p > .05) on the prosthodontic survival rates.

Multicenter randomized clinical trial: early loading of implants in maxillary bone

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to show prognostic equivalence between implant loading in the maxilla after 12 weeks versus 4 weeks.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred four patients, from four centers in this open-labeled randomized multicenter prospective controlled clinical trial, were assigned to either 12 weeks or 4 weeks of unloaded healing. Two hundred sixty-nine implants (sand blasted large-grid, acid etched [SLA] surface, ≥ 4.1 mm diameter; ≥ 10 mm length) were inserted and evaluated during an individual 5-year follow-up. Primary outcome was implant success after 12 months; prognostic equivalence was characterized by a maximum difference of ± 5% in implant failure rates.

RESULTS

Implant-wise 1-year failure rates were estimated 3.1% (5/163 implants) in the 4 weeks group versus 3.6% (4/112 implants) in the 12 weeks group (95% confidence interval [CI] for the difference -3.2 -+4.2%); implant-wise evaluation demonstrated statistically significant prognostic equivalence of 4 and 12 weeks loading. Patient-wise 1-year failure rates were estimated 6.7% (n = 4 patients) in the 4 weeks group versus 5.1% (n = 2 patients) in the 12 weeks group (95% CI for the difference -9.6 -+6.5%). All implant failures occurred within the first 3 months of the individual observation period. Prior bone augmentation, underdimensioned drilling, bone quality, implant type, implant length, implant diameter, residual teeth, and fixing of the restoration did not reveal associations with the implant outcome: trial site, posterior jaw region, and splinting were associated with a higher failure rate. Resonance frequency analysis did not serve as a predictor of implant failures at the time of implant insertion.

CONCLUSION

Loading of standard SLA implants in the maxilla 4 weeks versus 12 weeks after insertion resulted in statistically equivalent failure patterns within a 1-year follow-up period; nevertheless, the observed patient-wise failure patterns of the interim analysis requires further understanding of patient-individual aspects of the early loading concept.

Early outcome of an implant system with a resorbable adhesive calcium-phosphate coating--a prospective clinical study in partially dentate patients

This study aims to investigate the early outcome of a dental implant with bioactive calcium-phosphate (CaP) coating in the first year of usage in different clinical indications in partially edentulous patients, after early and delayed prosthetic loading. Therefore, in a prospective follow-up study, the cumulative survival and success rate of a conical, self-drilling and self-tapping implant system after 6 months and 1 year post-insertion was evaluated. A total of 311 CaP-coated implants were placed in 124 patients. Seventy-two implants in clinical high-quality bone situation were loaded after 2 weeks post-insertion with the definite restoration; the rest after 6 months. The indication for implant placement was treatment of partial dentate mandible and maxilla. One hundred sixty-three implants were placed in the posterior mandible, 117 in the posterior maxilla. In the frontal maxilla, 25 implants and in the frontal mandible, eight implants were used. In 126 cases (36%), bone augmentation procedures (guided bone regeneration and sinus lift) were performed concomitant with implant placement. The difference between primary and secondary stability (implant stability quotient (ISQ), Periotest, insertion torque), peri-implant clinical parameter as well as survival and success criteria were evaluated. In total, ISQ mean values after 6 months were higher than after implant placement. Periotest values increased in the period of the first 6 months and remained constant afterwards. After 6 months of insertion, the mean bone loss was 0.051 mm. After 12 months, a bone gain with a mean of +0.016 mm was observed; implants in the posterior maxilla showed significant less bone resorption than implants in the posterior mandible (p < 0.0001). In the most of the implants (74%), clinical normal gingival tissue could be observed. In 24%, a mild inflammation was analysed. In 35 implants, a provocation of peri-implant bleeding was possible. In the early loading group, no implant failure was seen. Altogether, one implant in D4 bone has been lost. The cumulative survival rate summed up to 99.7%. In general, implant success assessment analysis according to Albrektsson and Buser displayed success in 99.7% of the implants. With respect to the patient selection including 124 implants with minor and major augmentations as well as early loading prosthetic function, the 1-year clinical use of the studied implant system with CaP coating showed good results, comparable to that of conventional implants without a specific coating. After 1 year, neither special disadvantages nor benefits of CaP-coated implants could be evaluated. Long-term results are further needed.

Survival of immediate implant restoration: a retrospective study through 9-year-observation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this retrospective study was to assess the implant survival rate and the risk factors associated with implant failure in patients who had undergone immediate implant restoration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review and an outcome assessment of all patients who received immediate implant restoration between 2000 and 2010 in our department at Tokushima University Hospital. The patients were divided into groups on the basis of the predictor variables: age, gender, implant location, and number of implants per jaw. The cumulative implant survival rate in the paired groups was determined by using Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards model was subsequently used to identify exposures associated with implant failure.

RESULTS

Using the Kaplan-Meier method, the survival rates at 1, 3, and 9 years were calculated to be 98.8%, 98.0%, and 94.7%, respectively. No statistically significant association was observed between the implant survival rates and the predictor variables: gender, age, location, and number of implants.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate implant restoration is a reliable prosthetic procedure with an acceptable survival rate compared to the conventional implant procedure.