Marginal bone loss and the risk indicators of fixed screw‐retained implant‐supported prostheses and fixed telescopic‐retained implant‐supported prostheses in full arch: A retrospective case–control study

Objectives This study compared full‐arch screw‐retained implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FSI‐FDPs) and full‐arch telescopic‐retained implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses with a professional retrieval system (FTI‐FDPs) on marginal bone loss (MBL), the risk indicators and peri‐implantit...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical oral implants research 2021-07, Vol.32 (7), p.818-827
Main Authors: Oda, Yukari, Mori, Gentaro, Honma, Shinya, Ito, Taichi, Iijima, Toshikazu, Yajima, Yasutomo
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
bone implant interactions
Bone loss
Butt joints
clinical research
clinical trials
Dental materials
Dental prosthetics
Dentistry
Indicators
Joints (anatomy)
Prostheses
prosthodontics
Retention
Risk
Superstructures
Surgical implants
Transplants & implants
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives This study compared full‐arch screw‐retained implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FSI‐FDPs) and full‐arch telescopic‐retained implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses with a professional retrieval system (FTI‐FDPs) on marginal bone loss (MBL), the risk indicators and peri‐implantitis rate after 7–13 years. Material and methods Sixty five edentulous patients were treated with 86 prostheses and 592 implants. The FSI‐FDP group comprised 26 patients (32 prostheses, 202 implants), and the FTI‐FDP group comprised 39 patients (54 prostheses, 390 implants). MBL and the risk indicators of MBL ≥1 mm were assessed. Peri‐implantitis rates at 13 years were also calculated. Results Full‐arch screw‐retained implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses and FTI‐FDP implants exhibited comparable mean MBLs of 0.60 ± 0.51 and 0.41 ± 1.03 mm, respectively. MBL ≥1 mm was noted for 25% of FSI‐FDP implants and 6.9% of FTI‐FDP implants. Superstructure–abutment connection (screw retention:FSI‐FDPs >telescopic retention:FTI‐FDPs) and implant–abutment connection (External butt joint, Internal butt joint >Morse taper joint) were associated with MBL ≥1 mm. Peri‐implantitis rates at the implant level were 3.99% (95%CI = 3.93–20.5) in FSI‐FDP group and 3.85% (95%CI = 3.85–34.3) in FTI‐FDP group with no significance. Conclusions It was concluded that FSI‐FDP and FTI‐FDP implants exhibited comparable MBL; however, the risk of MBL ≥1 mm in FTI‐FDPs was lower than in FSI‐FDPs. Besides, implant–abutment connection was the risk indicator of MBL ≥1 mm. In peri‐implantitis rate, FSI‐FDPs and FTI‐FDPs behave similarly.
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/clr.13750