Marco Tallarico1, Silvio Mario Meloni2, Luigi Canullo3, Martina Caneva4, Giovanni Polizzi5. 1. Private practice, Rome, Italy. me@studiomarcotallarico.it. 2. Department of Surgical Microsurgical and Medical Sciences, Dentistry Unit, University Hospital of Sassari, Sassari, Italy. 3. Private practice, Rome, Italy. 4. University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy. 5. Private Clinic BSC, Verona, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the 5-year clinical and radiological outcomes of patients rehabilitated with four or six implants placed using guided surgery and immediate function concept. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Forty patients randomly received four (All-on-4) or six (All-on-6) immediately loaded implants, placed using guided surgery, to support a cross-arch fixed dental prosthesis. Outcome measures were survival rates of implants and prostheses, complications, peri-implant marginal bone loss, and periodontal parameters. RESULTS: No drop-out occurred. Seven implants failed at the 5-year follow-up examination: six in the All-on-6 group (5%) and one in the All-on-4 group (1.25%), with no statistically significant differences (p = .246). No prosthetic failure occurred. Both group experienced some technical and biologic complications with no statistically significant differences between groups (p = .501). All-on-4 treatment concept demonstrated a trend of more complications during the entire follow-up period. A trend of more implant failure was experienced for the All-on-6 treatment concept. Marginal bone loss (MBL) from baseline to the 5-year follow-up was not statistically different between All-on-4 (1.71 ± 0.42 mm) and All-on-6 (1.51 ± 0.36 mm) groups (p = .12). For periodontal parameters, there were no differences between groups (p > .05). CONCLUSION: Both approaches may represent a predictable treatment option for the rehabilitation of complete edentulous patients in the medium term. Longer randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these results.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the 5-year clinical and radiological outcomes of patients rehabilitated with four or six implants placed using guided surgery and immediate function concept. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients randomly received four (All-on-4) or six (All-on-6) immediately loaded implants, placed using guided surgery, to support a cross-arch fixed dental prosthesis. Outcome measures were survival rates of implants and prostheses, complications, peri-implant marginal bone loss, and periodontal parameters. RESULTS: No drop-out occurred. Seven implants failed at the 5-year follow-up examination: six in the All-on-6 group (5%) and one in the All-on-4 group (1.25%), with no statistically significant differences (p = .246). No prosthetic failure occurred. Both group experienced some technical and biologic complications with no statistically significant differences between groups (p = .501). All-on-4 treatment concept demonstrated a trend of more complications during the entire follow-up period. A trend of more implant failure was experienced for the All-on-6 treatment concept. Marginal bone loss (MBL) from baseline to the 5-year follow-up was not statistically different between All-on-4 (1.71 ± 0.42 mm) and All-on-6 (1.51 ± 0.36 mm) groups (p = .12). For periodontal parameters, there were no differences between groups (p > .05). CONCLUSION: Both approaches may represent a predictable treatment option for the rehabilitation of complete edentulouspatients in the medium term. Longer randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these results.