Document Type : Original Article
Authors
- Daniel Hernández-González 1
- Mauro Marincola 2
- Antonio Diaz-Caballero 3
- Alfredo Passaretti 4
- Andrea Cicconetti 4
1 Dept. of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Cartagena, Columbia.
2 Implant Dental Center, School of Dentistry, University of Cartagena, Columbia.
3 Dept. of Periodontics, PhD in Biomedical Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Cartagena, Columbia.
4 Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, School of Dentistry, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.
Abstract
Statement of the Problem: The satisfaction of patients with dentures on implants has different points of view that become fundamental aspects for the development of research on the quality of life of these patients, the eventual biomechanical complications to which these prostheses and implants can be subjected, and design considerations for cantilever extensions.
Purpose: The objective of research was to assess the implants and prosthesis survival rates, biomechanical complications relative to the length of the distal extensions (cantilevers), and the satisfaction of the patients with a fixed implant-supported full-arch fiber-reinforced composites prosthesis.
Materials and Method: A retrospective clinical and radiographic cohort study was developed. Clinical records of a selected cohort were analyzed according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data on a patient who underwent to fixed implant-supported full-arch fiber-reinforced composites prosthesis at least of five years of function were collected. Data analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Fisher's Exact Test. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results: After insertion, 1 of 29 prostheses failed, the overall prosthetic survival rate observed at 5 years was 96.5%. Of the 120 implants placed in 28 patients, only 4 patients experienced loss of an implant during the 5 years of observation; the implant survival rate throughout the observation period was 86.2%. Distal extension seems to negatively affect the prognosis of implant-supported rehabilitation. Regarding the level of satisfaction of the patient with the prosthesis, none reported being uncomfortable or dissatisfied neither with their appearance nor with the taste of food throughout the studied period.
Conclusion: No relevant associations were found between the variables involved. The study found the improvement in quality of life following the installation of fixed rehabilitation on the patients. Once the potential benefits of patients are obtained, controlled clinical trials are encouraged.
Keywords
- Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Larsson C. Retrospective evaluation of implant-supported full-arch fixed dental prostheses after a mean follow-up of 10 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020; 31: 634-645.
- Chochlidakis K, Einarsdottir E, Tsigarida A, Papaspyridakos P, Romeo D, Barmak AB, et al. Survival rates and prosthetic complications of implant fixed complete dental prostheses: An up to 5-year retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 539-546.
- Daudt*Polido W, Aghaloo T, Emmett TW, Taylor TD, Morton D. Number of implants placed for complete-arch fixed prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29 Suppl 16: 154–183.
- Drago C. Ratios of Cantilever Lengths and Anterior-Posterior Spreads of Definitive Hybrid Full-Arch, Screw-Retained Prostheses: Results of a Clinical Study, J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 402–408.
- Bagegni A, Abou-Ayash S, Rücker G, Algarny A, Att W. The influence of prosthetic material on implant and prosthetic survival of implant-supported fixed complete dentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis, J Prosthodont Res. 2019; 63: 251–265.
- BrånemarkPI, Hansson BO, Adell R, Breine U, Lindström J, Hallén O, et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1977; 16: 132.
- Purcell BA, McGlumphy EA, Yilmaz B, Holloway JA, Beck FM. Anteroposterior spread and cantilever length in mandibular metal-resin implant-fixed complete dental prostheses: A 7- to 9-year analysis. Int J Prosthodont. 2015; 28: 512–518.
- McGlumphy EA, Hashemzadeh S, Yilmaz B, Purcell BA, Leach D, Larsen PE. Treatment of edentulous mandible with metal‐resin fixed complete dentures: A 15‐ to 20‐year retrospective study. Clinical Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30: 817–825.
- Passaretti A, Petroni G, Miracolo G, Savoia V, Perpetuini A, Cicconetti A. Metal free, full arch, fixed prosthesis for edentulous mandible rehabilitation on four implants. J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62: 264–267.
- Da*Cunha MC, Santos JFFD, Santos MBFD, Marchini L. Patients’ expectation before and satisfaction after full-arch fixed implant-prosthesis rehabilitation. J Oral Implant. 2015; 41: 235–239.
- Goodacre C, Goodacre B. Fixed VS removable complete arch implant prostheses: A literature review of prosthodontic outcomes. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 10 Suppl 1: 13-34.
- ELsyad MA, Elgamal M, Mohammed*Askar O, Youssef Al-Tonbary G. Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of conventional denture, fixed prosthesis and milled bar overdenture for All-on-4 implant rehabilitation. A crossover study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30: 1107–1117.
- Simancas-Pallares M, John MT, Enstad C, Lenton P. The Spanish Language 5-Item Oral Health Impact Profile. Int Dent J. 2020; 70: 127–135.
- Baba K, Inukai M, John MT. Feasibility of oral health-related quality of life assessment in prosthodontic patients using abbreviated Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaires. J Oral Rehabil. 2008; 35: 224–228.
- Naik A, John MT, Kohli N, Self K, Flynn P. Validation of the english-language version of 5-item oral health impact profile. J Prosthodont Res. 2016; 60: 85–91.
- Moraschini V, Poubel LADC, Ferreira VF, Barboza EDSP. 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: 377–388.
- Meriç G, Erkmen E, Kurt A, Eser A, Ozden AU. Biomechanical comparison of two different collar structured implants supporting 3-unit fixed partial denture: a 3-D FEM study. Acta Odontol Scand. 2012; 70: 61–71.
- Cicconetti A, Passaretti A, Rastelli C, Rastelli E, Falisi G. Innovations in oral and maxillofacial surgery: biomimetics meets physiology, J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2019; 33: 1609–1613.
- Zaparolli D, Peixoto RF, Pupim D, Macedo AP, Toniollo MB, de*Mattos M. Photoelastic analysis of mandibular full-arch implant-supported fixed dentures made with different bar materials and manufacturing techniques, Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2017; 81: 144–147.
- Duong HY, Roccuzzo A, Stähli A, Salvi GE, Lang NP, Sculean A. Oral health-related quality of life of patients rehabilitated with fixed and removable implant-supported dental prostheses. Periodontol. 2000; 88: 201–237.
- Fueki K, Kimoto K, Ogawa T, Garrett NR. Effect of implant-supported or retained dentures on masticatory performance: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 98: 470–477.
- Haraldson T, Carlsson GE, Ingervall B. Functional state, bite force and postural muscle activity in patients with osseointegrated oral implant bridges. Acta Odontol Scand. 1979; 37: 195–206.
- Strassburger C, Kerschbaum T, Heydecke G. Influence of implant and conventional prostheses on satisfaction and quality of life: A literature review. Part 2: Qualitative analysis and evaluation of the studies. Int J Prosthodont. 2006; 19: 339–348.
)