PURPOSE: To evaluate wide-diameter (ie, 5.5-mm-wide) Frialit-2 implants used for several forms of prosthetic rehabilitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 121 wide implants (74 maxillary, 47 mandibular) were placed in 114 patients (61 female, 53 male, mean age 37.2 +/- 14.9 years). Thirty-six single-tooth restorations, 63 fixed partial dentures (68 implants), 6 removable overdentures (7 implants), and 3 fixed complete dentures (8 implants) were placed. Eighty-seven were placed in the molar regions. The follow-up period for the implants was 12 to 114 months (mean 41.8 +/- 18.5 months). Peri-implant bone loss, pocket depth, Plaque Index values, Bleeding Index values, and Periotest values were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 2 maxillary implants were lost, for a cumulative survival rate of 98.3% (97.3% in the maxilla; 100% in the mandible). Mean peri-implant pocket depth (3.4 +/- 1.1 mm), bone resorption (1.4 +/- 1.2 mm), Periotest values (-4.3 +/- 3.1) as well as the Plaque Index and Bleeding Index (grades of 0 in 80% of cases) indicated acceptable results. DISCUSSION: The high survival rate may be attributed to avoidance of the use of short wide-diameter implants, and the primary intention to place wide-diameter implants. Preference of the molar region was a consequence of the peri-implant bone situation in the premolar region, which was frequently inadequate for a 5.5-mm implant. CONCLUSIONS: The use of wide-diameter implants can be a viable treatment option and may provide benefits in posterior regions for long-term maintenance of various implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitations. Some anatomic and prosthodontic limitations for the use of wide implants were
PURPOSE: To evaluate wide-diameter (ie, 5.5-mm-wide) Frialit-2 implants used for several forms of prosthetic rehabilitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective study, 121 wide implants (74 maxillary, 47 mandibular) were placed in 114 patients (61 female, 53 male, mean age 37.2 +/- 14.9 years). Thirty-six single-tooth restorations, 63 fixed partial dentures (68 implants), 6 removable overdentures (7 implants), and 3 fixed complete dentures (8 implants) were placed. Eighty-seven were placed in the molar regions. The follow-up period for the implants was 12 to 114 months (mean 41.8 +/- 18.5 months). Peri-implant bone loss, pocket depth, Plaque Index values, Bleeding Index values, and Periotest values were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 2 maxillary implants were lost, for a cumulative survival rate of 98.3% (97.3% in the maxilla; 100% in the mandible). Mean peri-implant pocket depth (3.4 +/- 1.1 mm), bone resorption (1.4 +/- 1.2 mm), Periotest values (-4.3 +/- 3.1) as well as the Plaque Index and Bleeding Index (grades of 0 in 80% of cases) indicated acceptable results. DISCUSSION: The high survival rate may be attributed to avoidance of the use of short wide-diameter implants, and the primary intention to place wide-diameter implants. Preference of the molar region was a consequence of the peri-implant bone situation in the premolar region, which was frequently inadequate for a 5.5-mm implant. CONCLUSIONS: The use of wide-diameter implants can be a viable treatment option and may provide benefits in posterior regions for long-term maintenance of various implant-supported prosthetic rehabilitations. Some anatomic and prosthodontic limitations for the use of wide implants were