Clinical outcomes of full-arch immediate fixed prostheses supported by two axial and two tilted implants: A retrospective cohort study with 12-15 years of follow-up

PURPOSE

To retrospectively assess clinical and radiographic outcomes of immediately loaded full-arch fixed prostheses supported by axial and tilted implants up to 15 years of function.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with one completely edentulous arch received an immediate full-arch fixed prosthesis supported by two anterior axial and two posterior tilted implants. Definitive prosthesis consisting of a CAD-CAM titanium framework and acrylic teeth was delivered 6 months later. Patients were regularly followed to assess clinical parameters and marginal bone level (MBL) change. Multilevel regression analysis was performed to investigate factors affecting implant failure and MBL.

RESULTS

Six hundred ninety-two implants were placed in 72 maxillae and 101 mandibles. Seven maxillary implants (5 axial and 2 tilted) in 6 patients and 12 mandibular implants (6 axial and 6 tilted) in 5 patients failed. 15-year cumulative implant survival was 97.51% and 96.91% in maxilla and mandible, respectively (p = .64). After 10 years, the difference in MBL between axial and tilted implants was not significant in the maxilla (p = .47, 65 patients), while it was in the mandible (p < .001, 80 patients). Significant higher bone loss was reported in the mandible at both 5- and 10-year follow-up (p < .001 and p = .004, respectively). Mixed-effect multilevel linear regression evidenced a correlation between arch and bone loss at 5- and 10-year follow-up, while no correlation was found with age, gender, smoking, diabetes, and history of periodontal disease.

CONCLUSION

This long-term study suggests that the present technique can be considered a viable treatment modality for the immediate rehabilitation of both maxilla and mandible.

Clinical success between tilted and axial implants in edentulous maxilla: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim:

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the clinical survival of axial and tilted implants in atrophic edentulous maxilla after three years of immediate loading and also the corresponding marginal bone loss.

Setting and Design:

This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA).

Materials and Methods:

The relevant studies were retrieved from MEDLINE(PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Science Direct, Google Scholar databases. The search was limited to studies published in the English language with no date restrictions. A further hand search was conducted on individual journals and reference lists of studies. The risk of bias in included studies was assessed by using the Evidence Project risk of bias tool.

Statistical Analysis Used:

Statistical meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software. The assessment for the level of evidence was done using GRADEpro software.

Results:

Eleven studies were finalised. All were included in the meta-analysis for implant survival, while only seven studies were included in the meta-analysis of marginal bone loss. After three years, the meta-analysis results for implant survival showed no statistical difference between axial and tilted implants, with the forest plot neither favouring axial nor tilted implants (RR = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.98-1.01); P-value = 0.59). After three years, the meta-analysis results for marginal bone showed no statistical difference between axial and tilted implants, with the forest plot neither favouring axial nor tilted implants (MD = -0.02; 95% CI; -0.09-0.06; P-value = 0.69).

Conclusion:

In the immediately loaded rehabilitation of completely edentulous atrophic maxillae, tilting of implants did not induce any significant alteration in their survival and their corresponding marginal bone loss levels compared to conventionally placed axial implants even after three years of function.

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.

Mandibular Full-Arch Fixed Prostheses Supported on 4 Implants with Either Axial Or Tilted Distal Implants: A 3-Year Prospective Study

PURPOSE

This prospective study evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcome of distally cantilevered 4-implant-supported fixed mandibular prostheses (4-ISFMP) with distal implants either in axial or distally tilted direction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty-one mandibulary edentulous patients received acrylic veneered 4-ISFMP with casted framework. Based on distal implant placement direction patients were assigned to 2 groups: 21 patients with four (2 anterior/2 posterior) axial implants (axial-group I) and 20 patients with 2 anterior axial/2 distal tilted implants (tilted-group II). Patients were prospectively followed for 3 years by annual examinations of implants and prosthetic survival rates including assessment for biological and mechanical complications. Additionally, peri-implant marginal bone resorption [MBR], pocket depth [PD], plaque index [PI], bleeding index [BI] and gingival index [GI], and calculus index [CI] were evaluated at each annual follow-up.

RESULTS

37/41 patients (19 axial-group I, 18 tilted-group II) and 148/164 implants were followed at the 1-, 2-, and 3-year evaluation (dropout rate: 11.8%) presenting no implant and denture loss (100% survival). The overall, MBR at year 1, 2, and 3 was 1.11 ± 0.4 mm, 1.26 ± 0.42 mm, and 1.40 ± 0.41 mm, respectively, representing a significant (p < .001) continuing time depending annual reduction. MBR and PD did not differ between anterior and posterior regions in both groups or for anterior and posterior regions between the groups. PI and CI were significantly (p < .001) higher for implants in anterior regions than for posterior regions in both groups. Moreover, posterior implant regions showed significantly (p < .001) higher PI and CI for axial-group I than for tilted-group II over time. Biological and mechanical complications as well as GI and BI did not differ between the groups over a 3-year follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

For clinical implant and prosthesis outcome no statistical significant mean differences were noted for distally cantilevered 4-ISFMP supported by distal implants placed in tilted or axial direction.