Implant Placement under Existing Removable Dental Prostheses and the Effect on Follow-Up and Prosthetic Maintenance

Survival and stability of strategic mini-implants with immediate or delayed loading under removable partial dentures: a 3-year randomized controlled clinical trial

Objectives

Stability values of mini-implants (MIs) are ambiguous. Survival data for MIs as supplementary abutments in reduced dentitions are not available. The aim of this explorative research was to estimate the 3-year stability and survival of strategic MIs after immediate and delayed loading by existing removable partial dentures (RPDs).

Material and methods

In a university and three dental practices, patients with unfavorable tooth distributions received supplementary MIs with diameters of 1.8, 2.1, and 2.4 mm. The participants were randomly allocated to group A (if the insertion torque ≥ 35 Ncm: immediate loading by housings; otherwise, immediate loading by RPD soft relining was performed) or delayed loading group B. Periotest values (PTVs) and resonance frequency analysis (RFA) values were longitudinally compared using mixed models.

Results

A total of 112 maxillary and 120 mandibular MIs were placed under 79 RPDs (31 maxillae). The 1st and 3rd quartile of the PTVs ranged between 1.7 and 7.8, and the RFA values ranged between 30 and 46 with nonrelevant group differences. The 3-year survival rates were 92% in group A versus 95% in group B and 99% in the mandible (one failure) versus 87% in the maxilla (eleven failures among four participants).

Conclusions

Within the limitations of explorative analyses, there were no relevant differences between immediate and delayed loading regarding survival or stability of strategic MIs.

Clinical relevance

The stability values for MIs are lower than for conventional implants. The MI failure rate in the maxilla is higher than in the mandible with cluster failure participants.

Clinical trial registration

German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien, DRKS-ID: DRKS00007589, www.germanctr.de), January 15, 2015.

Survival Rates and Clinical Outcomes of Implant Overdentures in Old and Medically Compromised Patients

Studies on the survival rate of implant overdentures in medically compromised patients are limited because most studies exclude patients with systemic diseases affecting implant prognosis. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the survival rate and clinical outcomes of dental implants used for overdentures in medically compromised patients. A total of 20 patients (9 men, 11 women; mean age: 67.55 ± 6.84 years, range: 53-81 years) were included. Fourteen patients had more than two systemic diseases, and nine patients had more than three systemic diseases. The mean follow-up period was 39.05 months. Of the 60 implants, 2 failed, resulting in an implant survival rate of 96.6%. No statistical differences were found in implant survival rates according to sex, age, implant diameter, restored arch, or opposing dentition (p > 0.05). A significant difference in mean marginal bone loss (MBL) was noted for restoring the arch (p = 0.022) and opposing dentition (p = 0.036). Implants placed in the mandible and with opposing removable partial dentures and complete dentures showed lower mean MBL. No significant differences in implant MBL were observed in terms of age, sex, or implant diameter (p > 0.05). Favorable clinical outcomes can be expected from implant overdentures using two or four implants in edentulous patients with systemic diseases by ensuring that the patients have a sufficient healing period and regular checkups.

Clinical performance of tooth implant-supported removable partial dentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical performance of tooth implant-supported removable partial dentures in terms of abutment survival in relation to the attachment system used.

METHODS

An electronic search in MEDLINE/PubMed Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases was performed. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Survival rates after 3 years and 5 years, loss, and complication rates per 100 years were estimated by Poisson regression.

RESULTS

A total of twelve studies were included; eleven studies were used for the meta-analysis. Survival analysis for mixed attachments showed an estimated survival rate of 100% after 3 years and 5 years. For uniform attachments, the estimated survival rate was 99.3% after 3 years and 98.8% after 5 years. Tooth abutment survival analysis for mixed attachments estimated a survival rate of 95% after 3 years and 91.7% after 5 years: Uniform attachments reached a survival rate of 97.2% after 3 years and 95.4% after 5 years. The prosthetic survival rate was 100% for mixed and uniform abutments after 3 years and 5 years of function.

CONCLUSIONS

Tooth implant-supported removable partial dentures can be considered as a reliable option with excellent prosthetic and implant survival rates and favorable rates for the abutments after 3-year and 5-year follow-ups. Complications may be reduced when 5 or more abutments are used.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Tooth implant-supported removable partial dentures are a favorable and potential alternative to restore a partially edentulous arch by optimizing the number and distribution of abutments.

Clinical Performance of Implant Crown Retained Removable Partial Dentures for Mandibular Edentulism-A Retrospective Study

The studies on implant-crown-retained removable partial dentures (IC-RPDs) for edentulism are scarce. The purpose of this study was to evaluate survival rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) of IC-RPDs compared to implant overdentures (IODs) in mandibular edentulism. Variables that influenced survival and marginal bone loss (MBL) of implants in both treatment modalities were analyzed and the functional/esthetic satisfaction of patients as well as prosthetic complications were also observed. Eighteen IC-RPDs with a total of 60 implant-supported survey crowns and 24 IODs with a total 94 implants retained with magnet attachments were observed. After a median observation period of 46.6 months (up to 149 months), we observed 98.3% implant survival rates for IC-RPDs and 92.5% for IODs. Kaplan–Meier survival curves based on the treatment modality showed that, at 96 months, cumulative survival rates were 98.3% in IC-RPD and 83.1% in IOD. For implant survival rates, no statistical differences were observed according to age, sex, opposing dentition, or implant positions (p = 0.515, 0.666, 0.201, 0.749, respectively). The implant MBL measurements for IC-RPD and IOD groups at the final recall check were 0.93 ± 1.22 mm and 2.12 ± 2.09 mm, respectively. Additionally, there were no significant differences between groups (p = 0.554). The implants with peri-implantitis at year 1 showed significantly higher MBL at final check-up (p < 0.001). The MBL of implants showed significant differences based on age (p = 0.008) and opposing dentition (p = 0.003). No significant differences of implant MBL were observed for the position of placed implants (p = 0.621) or sex (p = 0.666). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on functional and esthetic satisfaction were significantly improved after IC-RPD or IOD treatment (p < 0.001). The most frequent prosthetic complication of IC-RPD was clasp loosening, while for IOD group, it was attachment dislodgement. Within the limitations of this retrospective study, we concluded that IC-RPDs could be considered as a viable treatment option for edentulous patients who need few fixed abutments for satisfaction.

Maxillary implant overdenture retained by four unsplinted attachments and opposed by a natural or fixed dentition: One-year clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the implant, prosthesis, and patient-reported outcomes of maxillary removable prostheses retained by 4 implant-supported study abutments after a follow-up period of 1 year in patients with natural teeth or a fixed rehabilitation in the mandible.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 30 patients were included, and all received 4 implants in the upper maxilla. After 12 weeks, the prostheses were connected to the implant with unsplinted attachments. The implant and prosthodontics outcomes were assessed over a follow-up period of 1 year. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were evaluated with the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-20) questionnaire and an adaptation of the McGill Denture Satisfaction Instrument using a visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

A single patient dropped out. At the post-operative 12-week follow-up, 79.3% (95% CI: 64.6%-94.1%) of the patients displayed peri-implant mucosa hyperplasia and 69.0% (95% CI: 52.1%-85.8%) showed pain. After 1 year, 16 implants failed in 10 patients, leading to an implant survival rate of 86.2% (95% CI: 79.0%-92.5%), and the mean peri-implant bone loss was 1.01 ± 0.77 mm (95% CI: 0.85-1.16 mm). The prosthesis survival rate was 96.6% (95% CI: 82.2%-99.9%). The OHIP-20 and VAS scores both improved significantly from baseline to 1 year (p < .001).

CONCLUSION

The implant survival rate was lower compared to the literature for the upper maxilla. Despite the encountered problems, PROMs showed significant improvement with the implant overdenture retained by 4 unsplinted implants compared to conventional dentures.

Clinical outcomes of rigid and non-rigid telescopic double-crown-retained removable dental prostheses: An analytical review

PURPOSE

The objective of this literature review was to analyze the cumulative survival rates (CSRs) of rigid and non-rigid double-crown-retained removable dental prostheses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Screening of the literature published from January 1995 to December 2019 was performed by using electronic data base (Pubmed) and manual search. The CSRs of rigid and non-rigid double crown removable dental prostheses were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 403 articles were reviewed and 56 relevant articles of them were selected. Subsequently, 25 articles were included for data extraction. These articles were classified according to rigid and non-rigid type double crowns and further subdivided into teeth, implants, and teeth-implant combination types. The CSRs of rigid type double crown ranged from 68.9% to 95.1% of 5 to 10 years in tooth abutments, 94.02% to 100% over a 3-year mean observation periods in implant abutments, and 81.8% to 97.6% in tooth-implant combination. Non-rigid type double crowns had various CSR ranges from 34% to 94% maximum during 10 years observation in teeth abutment. The CSRs of non-rigid type had over 98% in implant abutments, and ranged from 85% to 100% in tooth-implant combination.

CONCLUSION

The CSRs of double crowns varies according to types. With accurate evaluation of the remaining teeth and plan of the strategic implant placement, it could be successful treatment alternatives for partially or completely edentulous patients.