Literature DB >> 17190302

Prosthetic complications with dental implants: from an up-to-8-year experience in private practice.

Rabah Nedir1, Mark Bischof, Serge Szmukler-Moncler, Urs C Belser, Jacky Samson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Evaluation of prosthetic complication was performed on 236 patients treated with 528 implants in an 8-year private practice experience.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample included 55 overdentures (ODs) and 265 fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Among the latter, 231 FPDs were cemented and 34 were screw-retained. The type and frequency of prosthetic incidents were recorded, including adjustments and complications. Statistical analysis was performed using a chi-square test to identify risk factors associated with complications. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Over this period, 1 abut ment fractured and 2 became loose, leading to a cumulative implant component success rate of 99.2%. Patients with removable prostheses had more complications than those with fixed ones, 66.0% versus 11.5%; the difference was significant (P < .001). Posterior fixed prostheses had more complications than anterior ones, 11.0% versus 0%; however, the difference was not significant (P = .16). The complication rates for cemented and screw-retained prostheses did not differ significantly (10.4% versus 5.9%; P = .61). Prostheses with an extension cantilever had more complications, 29.4% versus 7.9%; the difference was significant (P = .01). In the OD group, the ball-retained prostheses had a significantly higher rate of complications than the bar-retained ones (77.5% versus 42.9%; P = .04). In the FPD group, complications were not recurrent; most occurred during the first 2 years, and the rate of complications did not increase with time. In the OD group, 1.3 incidents per prosthesis were recorded. Incidents were often recurrent, and the rate of complications did not decrease with time.
CONCLUSIONS: Removable and fixed prostheses were associated with complications at different frequencies and of different types. In the removable group, adjustments and foreseeable complications were numerous, recurrent, and usually easy to manage. Bar-retained prostheses had fewer complications than ball-retained ones. In the fixed group, complications were limited in number and did not increase with time. Complications were restricted to the posterior region.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17190302

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants        ISSN: 0882-2786            Impact factor:   2.804


  13 in total

1.  Prosthetic rehabilitation in post-oncological patients: Report of two cases.

Authors:  Edoardo Brauner; Andrea Cassoni; Andrea Battisti; Davina Bartoli; Valentino Valentini
Journal:  Ann Stomatol (Roma)       Date:  2010-06-29

2.  Evaluation of immediately loaded mandibular four vertical versus tilted posterior implants supporting fixed detachable restorations without versus with posterior cantilevers.

Authors:  Latifa Abdallah Mohamed; Mohamed Moataz Khamis; Ahlam Mostafa El-Sharkawy; Rania Abdelaziz Fahmy
Journal:  Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2021-08-29

3.  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

4.  Prevalence of complications after the oral rehabilitation with implant-supported hybrid prostheses.

Authors:  Júlia Real-Osuna; Nieves Almendros-Marqués; Cosme Gay-Escoda
Journal:  Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal       Date:  2012-01-01

5.  Analytical and experimental position stability of the abutment in different dental implant systems with a conical implant-abutment connection.

Authors:  Wiebke Semper-Hogg; Silvan Kraft; Sebastian Stiller; Juergen Mehrhof; Katja Nelson
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-07-22       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Effect of attachment type on load distribution to implant abutments and the residual ridge in mandibular implant-supported overdentures.

Authors:  Nobuhiro Yoda; Yoshiki Matsudate; Masaru Abue; Guang Hong; Keiichi Sasaki
Journal:  J Dent Biomech       Date:  2015-03-16

7.  Clinical Evaluation of Complications in Implant-Supported Dentures: A 4-Year Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Sabiha Zelal Ülkü; Filiz Acun Kaya; Ersin Uysal; Belgin Gulsun
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2017-12-27

8.  Success rate in implant-supported overdenture and implant-supported fixed denture in cleft lip and palate patients.

Authors:  Jaine Zanolla; Flávio Monteiro Amado; Willian Saranholi da Silva; Bruno Ayub; Ana Lúcia Pompéia Fraga de Almeida; Simone Soares
Journal:  Ann Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2016 Jul-Dec

Review 9.  Retention failures in cement- and screw-retained fixed restorations on dental implants in partially edentulous arches: A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jatin K Jain; Rajesh Sethuraman; Sameer Chauhan; Piyush Javiya; Shreya Srivastava; Rutvik Patel; Bhagyashri Bhalani
Journal:  J Indian Prosthodont Soc       Date:  2018 Jul-Sep

10.  Complications of Fixed Full-Arch Implant-Supported Metal-Ceramic Prostheses.

Authors:  Ignacio Gonzalez-Gonzalez; Hector deLlanos-Lanchares; Aritza Brizuela-Velasco; Jose-Antonio Alvarez-Riesgo; Santiago Llorente-Pendas; Mariano Herrero-Climent; Angel Alvarez-Arenal
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-06-14       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.