Literature DB >> 11168268

Biological and technical complications and failures with fixed partial dentures (FPD) on implants and teeth after four to five years of function.

U Brägger1, S Aeschlimann, W Bürgin, C H Hämmerle, N P Lang.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the frequency of biological and technical complications with fixed partial dentures (FPDs) on implants, teeth and as mixed tooth-implant supported FPDs over 4 to 5 years of function. All implants belonged to the ITI Dental Implant System. Group I-I (implant FPD) included 33 patients with 40 FPDs, group T-T (tooth FPDs) 40 patients with 58 FPDs, group I-T (mixed tooth-implant FPDs) 15 with 18 FPD. Of the bridge abutments 144 were teeth and 105 were implants. The median number of units replaced by the FPDs was 3 (range 2-14). The mean age of the patients was 55.7 years (range 23-83). Complete failures resulted in the loss of one FPD in each group. Two implants were lost due to fracture secondarily to development of a bone defect. One tooth had a vertical fracture and 1 tooth was lost due to periodontitis. Biological complications (peri-implantitis, PPD > or = 5 mm and BOP+) occurred at 9.6% (10) of the implants. This number was, however, reduced to 5% if the threshold for definition of peri-implantitis was set at PPD > or = 6 mm and BOP+. Biological complications occurred in 11.8% (17) of the abutment teeth (NS compared to implants); 2.8% (4) had secondary caries, 4.9% (7) endodontic problems and 4.1% (6) had periodontitis (PPD > or = 5 mm, BOP+). Ten out of 32 patients with a general health problem indicated a biological complication, whereas 9 out of 53 patients with no general health problem had a biological complication (chi 2: NS). Statistically significantly more technical complications were found in FPDs on implants (chi 2, P < or = 0.05). The technical complications were associated with bruxism. Out of 10 bruxers 6 had a technical complication whereas 13 out of 75 non-bruxers had such a complication (chi 2 < or = 0.01). Extensions were associated with more technical complications (13 out of 35 with extensions versus 9 out of 81 without). In conclusion, favourable clinical conditions were found at tooth and implant abutments after 4-5 years of function. Loss of FPD over 4-5 years occurred at a similar rate with mixed, implant or tooth supported reconstructions. Significantly more porcelain fractures were found in FPDs on implants. Impaired general health status was not significantly associated with more biological failures but bruxism as well as extensions were associated with more technical failures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11168268     DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012001026.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  41 in total

1.  Tooth-implant-supported posterior fixed dental prostheses with zirconia frameworks: 3-year clinical result.

Authors:  Florian Beuer; Caroline Sachs; Julian Groesser; Jan-Frederik Gueth; Michael Stimmelmayr
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-09-24       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 2.  Dental occlusion: modern concepts and their application in implant prosthodontics.

Authors:  Gunnar E Carlsson
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2009-01-29       Impact factor: 2.634

3.  A Simple and Cost Effective Method used for Removal of a Fractured Implant Abutment Screw: A Case Report.

Authors:  Parth Satwalekar; K Subash Chander; B Anantha Reddy; N Sandeep; N Sandeep; Tanushree Satwalekar
Journal:  J Int Oral Health       Date:  2013-10-26

4.  Biomechanical analysis of alveolar bone stress around implants with different thread designs and pitches in the mandibular molar area.

Authors:  Ting-Hsun Lan; Je-Kang Du; Chin-Yun Pan; Huey-Er Lee; Wei-Hao Chung
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2011-02-08       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  The randomized shortened dental arch study: tooth loss over five years.

Authors:  M H Walter; W Hannak; M Kern; T Mundt; W Gernet; A Weber; B Wöstmann; H Stark; D Werner; S Hartmann; U Range; F Jahn; N Passia; P Pospiech; G Mitov; J Brückner; S Wolfart; E Busche; R G Luthardt; G Heydecke; B Marré
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  In vitro assessment of the accuracy of digital impressions prepared using a single system for full-arch restorations on implants.

Authors:  Leonardo Ciocca; Roberto Meneghello; Carlo Monaco; Gianpaolo Savio; Lorenzo Scheda; Maria Rosaria Gatto; Paolo Baldissara
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 2.924

7.  Success rate of dental implants inserted in autologous bone graft regenerated areas: a systematic review.

Authors:  M Clementini; A Morlupi; C Agrestini; L Ottria
Journal:  Oral Implantol (Rome)       Date:  2012-04-15

8.  A technique elucidating the retrieval of an adhered cover screw in a dental implant - a case report.

Authors:  J Bhuvaneswarri; S C Chandrasekaran
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2013-10-23

Review 9.  How frequent does peri-implantitis occur? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mia Rakic; Pablo Galindo-Moreno; Alberto Monje; Sandro Radovanovic; Hom-Lay Wang; David Cochran; Anton Sculean; Luigi Canullo
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 3.573

10.  Occlusion for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in partially edentulous patients: a literature review and current concepts.

Authors:  Judy Chia-Chun Yuan; Cortino Sukotjo
Journal:  J Periodontal Implant Sci       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 2.614

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.