Clinical and radiographic evaluation of implant-supported single-unit crowns with cantilever extension in posterior areas: A retrospective study with a follow-up of at least 10 years.
cantilever extension
crestal bone loss
implant-supported crown
long-term survival
peri-implantitis
radiographs
Journal
Clinical implant dentistry and related research
ISSN: 1708-8208
Titre abrégé: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100888977
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
revised:
16
11
2020
received:
24
04
2020
accepted:
17
12
2020
pubmed:
16
1
2021
medline:
16
4
2021
entrez:
15
1
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Implant-supported restorations with cantilever extension may display high rates of biological and technical complications. To report the outcomes of single-unit crowns with cantilever extension (SCCs). Patients with SCCs were reevaluated after ≥10 years of loading. Radiographic marginal bone levels (mBLs) at baseline (ie, delivery of SCCs) and follow-up were calculated and compared between implant surfaces adjacent to and distant from the cantilever extension. Implant survival and success rates were calculated. Twenty-one patients with 25 SCs supported by 25 implants were reevaluated after a mean of 13.6 ± 3.8 years (range: 10-19 years). No implants were lost. The mean overall mBLs changed from 0.99 mm ± 0.95 at baseline to 0.95 mm ± 0.99 at follow-up (p = 0.853). The mean pocket probing depths changed from 3.39 mm ± 0.62 at baseline to 3.34 mm ± 0.54 at follow-up (p = 0.635). Loss of retention occurred 3× in 2 patients (14.3%). At follow-up, peri-implant health was diagnosed in 10 (48%) and peri-implant mucositis in 11 (52%) patients, respectively. Within the limitations of the present study, the use of implant-supported SCs with cantilever extension in posterior areas represents a reliable long-term treatment option with a 100% implant survival rate and minimal marginal bone level changes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Implant-supported restorations with cantilever extension may display high rates of biological and technical complications.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To report the outcomes of single-unit crowns with cantilever extension (SCCs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Patients with SCCs were reevaluated after ≥10 years of loading. Radiographic marginal bone levels (mBLs) at baseline (ie, delivery of SCCs) and follow-up were calculated and compared between implant surfaces adjacent to and distant from the cantilever extension. Implant survival and success rates were calculated.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-one patients with 25 SCs supported by 25 implants were reevaluated after a mean of 13.6 ± 3.8 years (range: 10-19 years). No implants were lost. The mean overall mBLs changed from 0.99 mm ± 0.95 at baseline to 0.95 mm ± 0.99 at follow-up (p = 0.853). The mean pocket probing depths changed from 3.39 mm ± 0.62 at baseline to 3.34 mm ± 0.54 at follow-up (p = 0.635). Loss of retention occurred 3× in 2 patients (14.3%). At follow-up, peri-implant health was diagnosed in 10 (48%) and peri-implant mucositis in 11 (52%) patients, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of the present study, the use of implant-supported SCs with cantilever extension in posterior areas represents a reliable long-term treatment option with a 100% implant survival rate and minimal marginal bone level changes.
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
189-196Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Buser D, Sennerby L, De Bruyn H. Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions. Periodontol 2000. 2017;73(1):7-21.
Fontana F, Maschera E, Rocchietta I, Simion M. Clinical classification of complications in guided bone regeneration procedures by means of a nonresorbable membrane. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011;31(3):265-273.
Urban IA, Montero E, Monje A, Sanz-Sanchez I. Effectiveness of vertical ridge augmentation interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2019;46(suppl 21):319-339.
Cucchi A, Chierico A, Fontana F, et al. Statements and recommendations for guided bone regeneration: consensus report of the guided bone regeneration symposium held in Bologna, October 15 to 16, 2016. Implant Dent. 2019;28(4):388-399.
Pjetursson BE, Bragger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M. Comparison of survival and complication rates of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and implant-supported FDPs and single crowns (SCs). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(Suppl 3):97-113.
Shackleton JL, Carr L, Slabbert JC, Becker PJ. Survival of fixed implant-supported prostheses related to cantilever lengths. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71(1):23-26.
Aglietta M, Siciliano VI, Zwahlen M, et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(5):441-451.
Zurdo J, Romão C, Wennström JL. Survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed partial dentures with cantilevers: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20:59-66.
Romeo E, Storelli S. Systematic review of the survival rate and the biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of fixed dental prostheses with cantilevers on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean of 5 years follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):39-49.
Davis DM, Packer ME, Watson RM. Maintenance requirements of implant-supported fixed prostheses opposed by implant-supported fixed prostheses, natural teeth, or complete dentures: a 5-year retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16(5):521-523.
Rangert BKP, Langer B, Van Roekel N. Bending overload and implant fracture: a retrospective clinical analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1995;11(5):575.
Nedir R, Bischof M, Szmukler-Moncler S, Belser UC, Samson J. Prosthetic complications with dental implants: from an up-to-8-year experience in private practice. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21(6):919-928.
Halg GA, Schmid J, Hammerle CH. Bone level changes at implants supporting crowns or fixed partial dentures with or without cantilevers. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(10):983-990.
Palmer RM, Howe LC, Palmer PJ, Wilson R. A prospective clinical trial of single Astra Tech 4.0 or 5.0 diameter implants used to support two-unit cantilever bridges: results after 3 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(1):35-40.
Aglietta M, Iorio Siciliano V, Blasi A, et al. Clinical and radiographic changes at implants supporting single-unit crowns (SCs) and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with one cantilever extension. A retrospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(5):550-555.
Kim P, Ivanovski S, Latcham N, Mattheos N. The impact of cantilevers on biological and technical success outcomes of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. A retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(2):175-184.
Schmid E, Morandini M, Roccuzzo A, Ramseier CA, Sculean A, Salvi GE. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extension. A retrospective cohort study with a follow-up of at least 10years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31(12):1243-1252.
Roccuzzo A, Jensen SS, Worsaae N, Gotfredsen K. Implant-supported 2-unit cantilevers compared with single crowns on adjacent implants: a comparative retrospective case series. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(5):717-723.
Hammerle CHF, Cordaro L, Alccayhuaman KAA, et al. Biomechanical aspects: summary and consensus statements of group 4. The 5th EAO Consensus Conference 2018. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(suppl 18):326-331.
Lang NPJA, Orsanic T, Gusberti FA, Siegrist BE. Bleeding on probing. A predictor for the progression of periodontal disease? J Clin Periodontol. 1986;13(6):590-596.
Hammerle CHCS, Wilson TG Jr. Consensus statements and recommended clinical procedures regarding the placement of implants in extraction sockets. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(Suppl):26-28.
Updegrave WJ. The paralleling extension-cone technique in intraoral dental radiography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1951;4(10):1250-1261.
Berglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo MG, et al. Peri-implant diseases and conditions: consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(Suppl 20):S286-S291.
Salvi GE, Bragger U. Mechanical and technical risks in implant therapy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(suppl):69-85.
Coli PCV, Sennerby L, Bruyn H. Reliability of periodontal diagnostic tools for monitoring peri-implant health and disease. Periodontol 2000. 2017;73:203-217.
Gotfredsen K, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. Bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants subjected to static load of different duration. A study in the dog (III). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001;12(6):552-558.
Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Schmid B, Weigel C, et al. Does excessive occlusal load affect osseointegration? An experimental study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(3):259-268.
Kozlovsky A, Tal H, Laufer BZ, et al. Impact of implant overloading on the peri-implant bone in inflamed and non-inflamed peri-implant mucosa. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(5):601-610.
Lima LA, Bosshardt DD, Chambrone L, Araujo MG, Lang NP. Excessive occlusal load on chemically modified and moderately rough titanium implants restored with cantilever reconstructions. An experimental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30(11):1142-1154.
Katafuchi M, Weinstein BF, Leroux BG, Chen YW, Daubert DM. Restoration contour is a risk indicator for peri-implantitis: a cross-sectional radiographic analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(2):225-232.
Karoussis IK, Salvi GE, Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Bragger U, Hammerle CH, Lang NP. Long-term implant prognosis in patients with and without a history of chronic periodontitis: a 10-year prospective cohort study of the ITI Dental Implant System. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14(3):329-339.
Roccuzzo M, De Angelis N, Bonino L, Aglietta M. Ten-year results of a three-arm prospective cohort study on implants in periodontally compromised patients. Part 1: implant loss and radiographic bone loss. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21(5):490-496.
Roccuzzo M, Bonino F, Aglietta M, Dalmasso P. Ten-year results of a three arms prospective cohort study on implants in periodontally compromised patients. Part 2: clinical results. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(4):389-395.
Derks J, Schaller D, Hakansson J, Wennstrom JL, Tomasi C, Berglundh T. Effectiveness of implant therapy analyzed in a Swedish population: prevalence of Peri-implantitis. J Dent Res. 2016;95(1):43-49.
Kordbacheh Changi K, Finkelstein J, Papapanou PN. Peri-implantitis prevalence, incidence rate, and risk factors: a study of electronic health records at a U.S. dental school. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30(4):306-314.
Pjetursson BE, Helbling C, Weber HP, et al. Peri-implantitis susceptibility as it relates to periodontal therapy and supportive care. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(7):888-894.
Renvert S, Lindahl C, Persson GR. Occurrence of cases with peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis in a 21-26 years follow-up study. J Clin Periodontol. 2018;45(2):233-240.