Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Oct;19(10):983-90. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01556.x.

Bone level changes at implants supporting crowns or fixed partial dentures with or without cantilevers.

Author information

  • 1Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Dental School, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. gianni.haelg@zzmk.uzh.ch

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

The aim of this study was to analyze whether or not a cantilever extension on a fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) supported by implants increased the amount of peri-implant bone loss or technical complications compared with reconstructions without cantilevers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Fifty-four partially dentate patients with a total of 54 FDPs supported by 78 implants were enrolled in the study. Twenty-seven FDPs were with cantilever and 27 FDPs were without cantilever (control group). All FDPs were supported by one or two implants and were located in the posterior maxilla or mandible. The primary outcome variable was change in peri-implant marginal bone level from the time of FDP placement to the last follow-up visit. FDPs were under functional loading for a period of 3 up to 12.7 years. Statistical analysis was carried out with Student's t-test. Regression analyses were carried out to evaluate the influence of confounding factors on the peri-implant bone level change. In addition, implant survival rates were calculated and technical complications assessed.

RESULTS:

After a mean observation period of 5.3 years, the mean peri-implant bone loss for the FDPs with cantilevers was 0.23 mm (SD+/-0.63 mm) and 0.09 mm (SD+/-0.43 mm) for FDPs without cantilever. Concerning the bone level change at implants supporting FDPs with or without cantilevers no statistically significant differences were found. The regression analysis revealed that jaw of implant placement had a statistically significant influence on peri-implant bone loss. When the bone loss in the cantilever group and the control group were compared within the maxilla or mandible separately, no statistically significant difference was found. Implant survival rates reached 95.7% for implants supporting cantilever prostheses and 96.9% for implants of the control group. Five FDPs in the cantilever group showed minor technical complications, none were observed in the control group.

CONCLUSION:

Within the limitations of this study it was concluded that cantilever on FDPs did not lead to a higher implant failure rate and did not lead to more bone loss around supporting implants compared with implants supporting conventional FDPs. In contrast to these results more technical complications were observed in the group reconstructed with cantilever.

PMID:
18828813
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Wiley
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk