J Gunne1, P Astrand, T Lindh, K Borg, M Olsson. 1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Odontology, Umeå University, Sweden. johan.gunne@protetik.umu.se
Abstract
PURPOSE: The use of implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of partially edentulous patients is increasing. However, the possibilities of placing implants in the posterior part of the mandible are often limited. The purpose of this longitudinal study with 10 years of follow-up was to evaluate the use of short implants supporting fixed partial dentures (FPD) in the posterior part of the mandible, and to compare implant supported FPDs to tooth-implant supported FPDs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patient material comprised 23 patients with residual mandibular anterior teeth, and each patient received FPDs unilaterally. On one side the FPD was supported by two implants, and on the other side by one implant and one tooth, thus permitting intraindividual comparison. The distribution of the two types of FPDs in each jaw was randomized. Implant success rates, marginal bone changes, and mechanical complications were studied. RESULTS: The tooth-implant connection did not demonstrate any negative influences on the overall success rates for the 10-year period, nor were the shorter implants found to be less favorable. CONCLUSION: It is suggested that a prosthetic construction supported by both a tooth and an implant may be recommended as a predictable and reliable treatment alternative in the posterior mandible.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The use of implants for prosthetic rehabilitation of partially edentulouspatients is increasing. However, the possibilities of placing implants in the posterior part of the mandible are often limited. The purpose of this longitudinal study with 10 years of follow-up was to evaluate the use of short implants supporting fixed partial dentures (FPD) in the posterior part of the mandible, and to compare implant supported FPDs to tooth-implant supported FPDs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patient material comprised 23 patients with residual mandibular anterior teeth, and each patient received FPDs unilaterally. On one side the FPD was supported by two implants, and on the other side by one implant and one tooth, thus permitting intraindividual comparison. The distribution of the two types of FPDs in each jaw was randomized. Implant success rates, marginal bone changes, and mechanical complications were studied. RESULTS: The tooth-implant connection did not demonstrate any negative influences on the overall success rates for the 10-year period, nor were the shorter implants found to be less favorable. CONCLUSION: It is suggested that a prosthetic construction supported by both a tooth and an implant may be recommended as a predictable and reliable treatment alternative in the posterior mandible.