J Periodontal Implant Sci.  2015 Dec;45(6):210-215. 10.5051/jpis.2015.45.6.210.

Implant success rates in full-arch rehabilitations supported by upright and tilted implants: a retrospective investigation with up to five years of follow-up

• Francetti
• Rodolfi A
• Barbaro B
• Taschieri
• Cavalli N
• Corbella S

• KMID: 2354938
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2015.45.6.210

Abstract

PURPOSE
The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate the cumulative success rate, the implant survival rate, and the occurrence of biological complications in implants supporting full-arch immediately loaded rehabilitations supported by upright and tilted implants.
METHODS
The clinical records and periapical radiographs of patients who attended follow-up visits were collected, and information was recorded regarding marginal bone loss resorption, the occurrence of peri-implant infectious diseases, and the implant survival rate. Implants were classified as successful or not successful according to two distinct classifications for implant success.
RESULTS
A total of 53 maxillary and mandibular restorations including 212 implants were analysed, of which 56 implants were studied over the full five-year follow-up period. After five years, the cumulative success rate was 76.04% according to the Misch classification and 56.34% according to the Albrektsson classification. The cumulative implant survival rate was 100%, although one implant was found to be affected by peri-implantitis at the second follow-up visit.
CONCLUSIONS
The cumulative success rate of the implants dropped over time, corresponding to the progression of marginal bone resorption. The prevalence of peri-implantitis was very low, and the implant survival rate was not found to be related to the cumulative success rate.

Keyword

Bone resorption; Dental implants; Dental restoration failure; Implant-supported dental prosthesis; Peri-implantitis

MeSH Terms

Bone Resorption
Classification
Communicable Diseases
Dental Implants
Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
Dental Restoration Failure
Follow-Up Studies*
Humans
Peri-Implantitis
Prevalence
Retrospective Studies*
Survival Rate
Dental Implants

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 (A) Baseline findings of a patient. (B) Follow-up image taken three years after implant and prosthesis placement, showing no evidence of significant marginal bone resorption. (C) Follow-up examination at five years. No relevant marginal bone resorption was detected.

Reference

1. Allen F, McMillan A. Food selection and perceptions of chewing ability following provision of implant and conventional prostheses in complete denture wearers. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002; 13:320–326.

2. Awad MA, Lund JP, Dufresne E, Feine JS. Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: satisfaction and functional assessment. Int J Prosthodont. 2003; 16:117–139.

3. Awad MA, Lund JP, Shapiro SH, Locker D, Klemetti E, Chehade A, et al. Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population. Int J Prosthodont. 2003; 16:390–396.

4. Heydecke G, Thomason JM, Lund JP, Feine JS. The impact of conventional and implant supported prostheses on social and sexual activities in edentulous adults Results from a randomized trial 2 months after treatment. J Dent. 2005; 33:649–706.

5. Chiapasco M, Casentini P, Zaniboni M. Bone augmentation procedures in implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009; 24:Suppl. 237–296.

6. Maló P, Rangert B, Nobre M. “All-on-Four” immediate-function concept with Brånemark System implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003; 5:Suppl 1. 2–9.

7. Maló P, Rangert B, Nobre M. All-on-4 immediate-function concept with Brånemark System implants for completely edentulous maxillae: a 1-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005; 7:Suppl 1. S88–94.

8. Taschieri S, Corbella S, Francetti L, Del Fabbro M. Horizontal bone augmentation in full-arch maxillary implant-supported restorations: a preliminary clinical report. Implant Dent. 2014; 23:753–762.

9. Del Fabbro M, Ceresoli V. The fate of marginal bone around axial vs. tilted implants: a systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014; 7:Suppl 2. S171–89.

10. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Tilted versus axially placed dental implants: a meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015; 43:149–219.

11. Patzelt SB, Bahat O, Reynolds MA, Strub JR. The all-on-four treatment concept: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014; 16:836–891.

12. Francetti L, Corbella S, Taschieri S, Cavalli N, Del Fabbro M. Medium- and long-term complications in full-arch rehabilitations supported by upright and tilted implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 17:758–822.

13. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Chuang SK, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27:102–112.

14. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Singh M, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. Success criteria in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2012; 91:242–250.

15. Francetti L, Agliardi E, Testori T, Romeo D, Taschieri S, Del Fabbro M. Immediate rehabilitation of the mandible with fixed full prosthesis supported by axial and tilted implants: interim results of a single cohort prospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008; 10:255–318.

16. Kwon T, Bain PA, Levin L. Systematic review of short- (5-10 years) and long-term (10 years or more) survival and success of full-arch fixed dental hybrid prostheses and supporting implants. J Dent. 2014; 42:1228–1269.

17. Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Gravito I. All-on-4(R) treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the completely edentulous mandible: a 7-year clinical and 5-year radiographic retrospective case series with risk assessment for implant failure and marginal bone level. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 17:Suppl 2. e531–41.

18. Weinstein R, Agliardi E, Fabbro MD, Romeo D, Francetti L. Immediate rehabilitation of the extremely atrophic mandible with fixed full-prosthesis supported by four implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14:434–475.

19. Chen ST, Buser D. Esthetic outcomes following immediate and early implant placement in the anterior maxilla--a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29:Suppl. 186–215.

20. Martin WC, Pollini A, Morton D. The influence of restorative procedures on esthetic outcomes in implant dentistry: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29:Suppl. 142–196.

21. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986; 1:11–25.

22. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent. 2008; 17:5–15.

23. Krekmanov L, Heimdahl A. Bone grafting to the maxillary sinus from the lateral side of the mandible. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2000; 38:617–626.

24. Ainamo J, Bay I. Problems and proposals for recording gingivitis and plaque. Int Dent J. 1975; 25:229–264.

25. Kim JS, Dailey RJ. Biostatistics for oral healthcare. 1st ed. Oxford: Blackwell Munksgaard;2008.

26. Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A. The use of computer-guided flapless implant surgery and four implants placed in immediate function to support a fixed denture: preliminary results after a mean follow-up period of thirteen months. J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 97:Suppl. S26–34.

27. Agliardi E, Clericò M, Ciancio P, Massironi D. Immediate loading of full-arch fixed prostheses supported by axial and tilted implants for the treatment of edentulous atrophic mandibles. Quintessence Int. 2010; 41:285–378.

28. Capelli M, Zuffetti F, Del Fabbro M, Testori T. Immediate rehabilitation of the completely edentulous jaw with fixed prostheses supported by either upright or tilted implants: a multicenter clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007; 22:639–683.

29. Francetti L, Romeo D, Corbella S, Taschieri S, Del Fabbro M. Bone level changes around axial and tilted implants in full-arch fixed immediate restorations. Interim results of a prospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14:646–700.

30. Landázuri-Del Barrio RA, Cosyn J, De Paula WN, De Bruyn H, Marcantonio E Jr. A prospective study on implants installed with flapless-guided surgery using the all-on-four concept in the mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24:428–461.

31. Aparicio C, Perales P, Rangert B. Tilted implants as an alternative to maxillary sinus grafting: a clinical, radiologic, and periotest study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2001; 3:39–49.

32. Browaeys H, Dierens M, Ruyffelaert C, Matthijs C, De Bruyn H, Vandeweghe S. Ongoing Crestal Bone Loss around Implants Subjected to Computer-Guided Flapless Surgery and Immediate Loading Using the All-on-4(R) Concept. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 17:831–874.

33. Calandriello R, Tomatis M. Simplified treatment of the atrophic posterior maxilla via immediate/early function and tilted implants: A prospective 1-year clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005; 7:Suppl 1. S1–12.

34. Moraschini V, Poubel LA, Ferreira VF, Barboza ES. Evaluation of survival and success rates of dental implants reported in longitudinal studies with a follow-up period of at least 10 years: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015; 44:377–465.