Andrea Roccuzzo1, Simon Storgård Jensen2, Nils Worsaae3, Klaus Gotfredsen4. 1. Research Fellow, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital (Rigshospitalet), Copenhagen, Denmark; Resident, Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Private practice, Turin, Italy. Electronic address: andrea.roccuzzo@zmk.unibe.ch. 2. Consultant, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital (Rigshospitalet), Copenhagen, Denmark; Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3. Consultant, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital (Rigshospitalet), Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. Professor, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The replacement of 2 adjacent missing teeth remains a clinical challenge. Among the different treatment options, the use of a single implant to support a 2-unit cantilever fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) has been proposed in situations of limited mesiodistal space, even though the evidence for its use is low. PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective comparative case series was to evaluate hard and soft peri-implant tissues in patients with 2 adjacent missing teeth in the anterior area (incisors or canines) rehabilitated with implant-supported 2-unit cantilevers or single crowns on adjacent implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-three from a cohort of 34 patients rehabilitated with 2-implant systems between September 2006 and November 2015 with 2-unit cantilever FDPs (test group) (n=16) or 2 adjacent dental implants supporting single crowns (control group) (n=7) were available for follow-up. At the baseline and follow-up examinations, the implant survival rate, peri-implant probing pocket depth, marginal bone level (MBL), as well as papilla scores and prosthetic outcomes from the Copenhagen Index Score were recorded and evaluated. RESULTS: One implant in the control group was lost during the observation period, leading to an overall implant survival rate of 97%. Mean peri-implant probing depths were low (≤5 mm) in both the groups. Stable marginal bone levels were detected around adjacent implants and around implants supporting cantilevers. Medium to high esthetic scores were obtained in most patients. Papilla index scores were high (score 1 and 2) in both the groups. Finally, no technical complications were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a single-implant-supported 2-unit cantilever FDP in anterior sites is a valid treatment option compared with 2 adjacent implants, especially when the available mesiodistal space is limited.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The replacement of 2 adjacent missing teeth remains a clinical challenge. Among the different treatment options, the use of a single implant to support a 2-unit cantilever fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) has been proposed in situations of limited mesiodistal space, even though the evidence for its use is low. PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective comparative case series was to evaluate hard and soft peri-implant tissues in patients with 2 adjacent missing teeth in the anterior area (incisors or canines) rehabilitated with implant-supported 2-unit cantilevers or single crowns on adjacent implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-three from a cohort of 34 patients rehabilitated with 2-implant systems between September 2006 and November 2015 with 2-unit cantilever FDPs (test group) (n=16) or 2 adjacent dental implants supporting single crowns (control group) (n=7) were available for follow-up. At the baseline and follow-up examinations, the implant survival rate, peri-implant probing pocket depth, marginal bone level (MBL), as well as papilla scores and prosthetic outcomes from the Copenhagen Index Score were recorded and evaluated. RESULTS: One implant in the control group was lost during the observation period, leading to an overall implant survival rate of 97%. Mean peri-implant probing depths were low (≤5 mm) in both the groups. Stable marginal bone levels were detected around adjacent implants and around implants supporting cantilevers. Medium to high esthetic scores were obtained in most patients. Papilla index scores were high (score 1 and 2) in both the groups. Finally, no technical complications were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a single-implant-supported 2-unit cantilever FDP in anterior sites is a valid treatment option compared with 2 adjacent implants, especially when the available mesiodistal space is limited.
Authors: Daniel S Thoma; Karin Wolleb; Roman Schellenberg; Franz-Josef Strauss; Christoph H F Hämmerle; Ronald E Jung Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 7.478