BACKGROUND: There is a need for studies evaluating the long term outcomes of the All-on-4 treatment concept. PURPOSE: To evaluate the long term clinical and radiographic outcomes of the All-on-4 treatment concept in the mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal case series study included 471 patients (women: 286, men: 185, average age = 57.7 years) rehabilitated with 1884 implants in immediate function supporting 471 fixed full-arch mandibular prostheses and followed for 10 to 18 years. Primary outcome measures were prosthetic survival and implant success and survival (estimated using life tables). Secondary outcome measures were marginal bone loss (MBL) at 10 and 15 years, biological and mechanical complications. Multivariable analysis was used to estimate potential risk indicators for implant failure (Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI)), MBL > 3 mm at 10 and 15 years, biological and mechanical complications (binary logistic regression to estimate odds ratios [ORs] with 95%CI). RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients deceased (5.7%) and 149 patients (31.6%) were lost to follow-up. The cumulative prosthetic survival rate was 98.8%; the implant cumulative survival and success rate was 93% and 91.7%, respectively up to 18 years of follow-up. Previous biological complications (HR = 4.43) were significantly associated with implant failure. Average (95% CI) MBL at 10- and 15-years were 1.72 mm (95%CI: 1.59, 1.85) and 2.32 mm (95% CI: 1.98, 2.66). Smoking (OR = 2.72), previous failure of a contiguous implant (OR = 3.89) and biological complication (OR = 8.11) were associated with MBL > 3 mm. The incidence of biological complications was 11.8% at implant level, with previous failure of a contiguous implant (OR = 5.56), smoking (OR = 1.75), and systemic condition (OR = 1.65) were significantly associated. The incidence of mechanical complications was 36.7% with male gender (OR = 1.67) and type of prosthetic material used in the restoration significantly associated (metal-acrylic OR = 0.30; metal-ceramic OR = 0.22)). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the implant, prosthetic and MBL outcomes it is concluded that the All-on-4 is a viable treatment option validated in the long term. Nevertheless, biological and mechanical complications can occur.
BACKGROUND: There is a need for studies evaluating the long term outcomes of the All-on-4 treatment concept. PURPOSE: To evaluate the long term clinical and radiographic outcomes of the All-on-4 treatment concept in the mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal case series study included 471 patients (women: 286, men: 185, average age = 57.7 years) rehabilitated with 1884 implants in immediate function supporting 471 fixed full-arch mandibular prostheses and followed for 10 to 18 years. Primary outcome measures were prosthetic survival and implant success and survival (estimated using life tables). Secondary outcome measures were marginal bone loss (MBL) at 10 and 15 years, biological and mechanical complications. Multivariable analysis was used to estimate potential risk indicators for implant failure (Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI)), MBL > 3 mm at 10 and 15 years, biological and mechanical complications (binary logistic regression to estimate odds ratios [ORs] with 95%CI). RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients deceased (5.7%) and 149 patients (31.6%) were lost to follow-up. The cumulative prosthetic survival rate was 98.8%; the implant cumulative survival and success rate was 93% and 91.7%, respectively up to 18 years of follow-up. Previous biological complications (HR = 4.43) were significantly associated with implant failure. Average (95% CI) MBL at 10- and 15-years were 1.72 mm (95%CI: 1.59, 1.85) and 2.32 mm (95% CI: 1.98, 2.66). Smoking (OR = 2.72), previous failure of a contiguous implant (OR = 3.89) and biological complication (OR = 8.11) were associated with MBL > 3 mm. The incidence of biological complications was 11.8% at implant level, with previous failure of a contiguous implant (OR = 5.56), smoking (OR = 1.75), and systemic condition (OR = 1.65) were significantly associated. The incidence of mechanical complications was 36.7% with male gender (OR = 1.67) and type of prosthetic material used in the restoration significantly associated (metal-acrylic OR = 0.30; metal-ceramic OR = 0.22)). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the implant, prosthetic and MBL outcomes it is concluded that the All-on-4 is a viable treatment option validated in the long term. Nevertheless, biological and mechanical complications can occur.