| Literature DB >> 11359481 |
I E Naert1, J A Duyck, M M Hosny, D Van Steenberghe.
Abstract
In 123 patients, 339 implants were connected to 313 teeth by means of fixed partial prostheses (test) and followed up for 1.5-15 years (mean: 6.5). In another ad random selected 123 patients, 329 implants were connected to each other by means of 123 freestanding fixed partial prostheses (control) and were followed up for 1.3-14.5 years (mean: 6.2). The aim of this study was to compare both treatment modalities with each other based on implant, tooth and prosthesis complications. The cumulative implant success, based on implant immobility and/or lack of implant fractures after loading, in the test and control groups amounted to 95% and 98.5%, respectively. Although in the test group 10 implants versus only 1 in the control group failed, a regression analysis of the survival data, based on the cox proportional hazards model, revealed no significant difference. In the test group periapical lesions (3.5%), tooth fracture (0.6%) and tooth extraction due to fatal decay or periodontitis (1%) were observed, besides tooth intrusion (3.4%) and crown cement failure (8%). Framework fracture occurred in 3 patients. In the control group, only 2 abutment screws fractured. The treatment of partial edentulism by means of oral implants was beneficial for our patients. Because of a clear tendency of more implant failures (mobility or fractures) and tooth complications in the tooth-implant connected prostheses, the freestanding solution is the primary option to be considered. To avoid intrusion of abutment teeth, the connection, if made, should be completely rigid.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2001 PMID: 11359481 DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003237.x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res ISSN: 0905-7161 Impact factor: 5.977