Format

Send to

Choose Destination

See 1 citation found by title matching your search:

Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017 Oct;19(5):849-859. doi: 10.1111/cid.12526. Epub 2017 Aug 1.

Comparison of marginal bone loss and implant success between axial and tilted implants in maxillary All-on-4 treatment concept rehabilitations after 5 years of follow-up.

Author information

1
Dr. Bernd Quantius & Milena Hopp, Private Practice of Implantology and Periodontology, Giesenkirchener Str. 40, Mönchengladbach 41238, Germany.
2
Research and Development Department, Maló Clinic, Lisbon, Portugal.
3
Oral Surgery Department, Maló Clinic, Lisbon, Portugal.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

There is need for more scientific and clinical information on longer-term outcomes of tilted implants compared to implants inserted in an axial position.

PURPOSE:

Comparison of marginal bone loss and implant success after a 5-year follow-up between axial and tilted implants inserted for full-arch maxillary rehabilitation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

The retrospective clinical study included 891 patients with 3564 maxillary implants rehabilitated according to the All-on-4 treatment concept. The follow-up time was 5 years. Linear mixed-effect models were performed to analyze the influence of implant orientation (axial/tilted) on marginal bone loss and binary logistic regression to assess the effect of patient characteristics on occurrence of marginal bone loss >2.8 mm. Only those patients with measurements of at least one axial and one tilted implant available were analyzed. This resulted in a data set of 2379 implants (1201 axial, 1178 tilted) in 626 patients (=reduced data set).

RESULTS:

Axial and tilted implants showed comparable mean marginal bone losses of 1.14 ± 0.71 and 1.19 ± 0.82 mm, respectively. Mixed model analysis indicated that marginal bone loss levels at 5 years follow up was not significantly affected by the orientation (axial/tilted) of the implants in the maxillary bone. Smoking and female gender were associated with marginal bone loss >2.8 mm in a logistic regression analysis. Five-year implant success rates were 96%. The occurrence of implant failure showed to be statistically independent from orientation.

CONCLUSIONS:

Within the limitations of this study and considering a follow-up time of 5 years, it can be concluded that tilted implants behave similarly with regards to marginal bone loss and implant success in comparison to axial implants in full-arch rehabilitation of the maxilla. Longer-term outcomes (10 years +) are needed to verify this result.

KEYWORDS:

All-on-4; biological complication; edentulous maxilla; immediate function; longer-term outcome; marginal bone loss; tilted implants

PMID:
28766312
DOI:
10.1111/cid.12526
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center