Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Prosthodont. 2015 Jun;24(4):263-70. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12228. Epub 2014 Oct 1.

Double Full-Arch Versus Single Full-Arch, Four Implant-Supported Rehabilitations: A Retrospective, 5-Year Cohort Study.

Author information

1
Oral Surgery Department, Malo Clinic, Lisbon, Portugal.
2
Research and Development Department, Malo Clinic, Lisbon, Portugal.
3
Prosthodontics Department, Malo Clinic, Lisbon, Portugal.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To report the 5-year outcome of the All-on-4 treatment concept comparing double full-arch (G1) and single-arch (G2) groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

This retrospective cohort study included 110 patients (68 women and 42 men, average age of 55.5 years) with 440 NobelSpeedy groovy implants. One hundred sixty-five full-arch, fixed, immediately loaded prostheses in both jaws were followed for 5 years. G1 consisted of 55 patients with double-arch rehabilitations occluded with implant-supported fixed prostheses, and G2 consisted of 55 patients with maxillary single-arch rehabilitations or mandibular single-arch rehabilitations occluded with natural teeth or removable prostheses. The groups were matched for age (±6 years) and gender. Primary outcome measures were cumulative prosthetic (both interim and definitive) and implant survival (Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator). Secondary outcome measures were marginal bone levels at 5 years (through periapical radiographs and using the patient as unit of analysis) and the incidence of mechanical and biological complications. Differences in survival curves (log-rank test), marginal bone level (Mann-Whitney U test), and complications (chi-square test) were compared inferentially between the two groups using the patient as unit of analysis with significance level set at p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS:

No dropouts occurred. Prosthetic survival was 100%. Five patients lost 5 implants (G1: n = 3; G2: n = 2) before 1 year, rendering an estimated cumulative survival rate of 95.5% (G1: 94.5%; G2: 96.4%; Kaplan-Meier, p = 0.645, nonsignificant). The average (SD) marginal bone level was 1.56 mm (0.89) at 5 years [G1: 1.45 mm (0.77); G2: 1.67 mm (0.99); p = 0.414]. The incidence rate of mechanical complications (in both interim and definitive prostheses) was 0.16 and 0.13 for G1 and G2, respectively (p = 0.032). The incidence rate of biological complications was 0.06 and 0.05 for G1 and G2, respectively (p = 0.669).

CONCLUSIONS:

Based on the results, rehabilitating double- or single-arch edentulous patients did not yield significant differences on survival curves. The incidence of mechanical complications was significantly higher for double-arch rehabilitated patients but nevertheless, these mechanical complications did not affect the long-term survival of either the prostheses or the implants.

KEYWORDS:

All-on-4; Dental implants; immediate function

PMID:
25273895
DOI:
10.1111/jopr.12228
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center