Clinical outcomes of full-arch immediate fixed prostheses supported by two axial and two tilted implants: A retrospective cohort study with 12-15 years of follow-up.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess clinical and radiographic outcomes of immediately loaded full-arch fixed prostheses supported by axial and tilted implants up to 15 years of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with one completely edentulous arch received an immediate full-arch fixed prosthesis supported by two anterior axial and two posterior tilted implants. Definitive prosthesis consisting of a CAD-CAM titanium framework and acrylic teeth was delivered 6 months later. Patients were regularly followed to assess clinical parameters and marginal bone level (MBL) change. Multilevel regression analysis was performed to investigate factors affecting implant failure and MBL. RESULTS: Six hundred ninety-two implants were placed in 72 maxillae and 101 mandibles. Seven maxillary implants (5 axial and 2 tilted) in 6 patients and 12 mandibular implants (6 axial and 6 tilted) in 5 patients failed. 15-year cumulative implant survival was 97.51% and 96.91% in maxilla and mandible, respectively (p = .64). After 10 years, the difference in MBL between axial and tilted implants was not significant in the maxilla (p = .47, 65 patients), while it was in the mandible (p < .001, 80 patients). Significant higher bone loss was reported in the mandible at both 5- and 10-year follow-up (p < .001 and p = .004, respectively). Mixed-effect multilevel linear regression evidenced a correlation between arch and bone loss at 5- and 10-year follow-up, while no correlation was found with age, gender, smoking, diabetes, and history of periodontal disease. CONCLUSION: This long-term study suggests that the present technique can be considered a viable treatment modality for the immediate rehabilitation of both maxilla and mandible.

Clinical outcomes and biological and mechanical complications of immediate fixed prostheses supported by zygomatic implants: A retrospective analysis from a prospective clinical study with up to 11 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Zygomatic implants alone or in combination with conventional implants have been used for severe atrophic maxillary arches. Long-term outcomes of extramaxillary technique need validations. PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess the clinical outcomes and the prevalence of surgical, biological, and prosthetic complications of implant-fixed complete dental prostheses (IFCDPs) supported by zygomatic implants up to 11 years of follow-up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental records of 34 subjects treated between October 2008 and June 2019 were reviewed. Patients received an immediate fixed full-arch prosthesis supported solely by zygomatic implants or by a combination of zygomatic and conventional implants. RESULTS: A total of 90 zygomatic implants and 53 standard implants were placed. Up to 11 years of follow-up, two conventional implants were lost, leading to 96.2% success rate for conventional implants and 100% for zygomatic implants. Marginal bone loss for conventional implants averaged 0.85 ± 0.17 mm after the first year and 1.36 ± 0.12 mm after 10 years, resulting in full implant success. No prosthesis was lost. The main surgical complication was the perforations of the Schneiderian membrane, occurring in five patients and in seven sinus cavities. Considering the biological complications, mucositis for standard and zygomatic implants ranged between 21%-35% and 26%-40%, respectively. No peri-implantitis were reported. Soft tissue hypertrophy ranged between 1.8% and 30% for conventional implants and 1.1%-35% for zygomatic implants. Inflammation under the prosthesis ranged between 33% and 50%. For the mechanical complications, abutment loosening was recorded in 5.8% of cases (two patients), tooth debonding and fracture of the prosthesis happened in five subjects (14.7%), and loosening of the prosthetic screws was reported in one patient (2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate rehabilitation of the severely atrophic maxilla with zygomatic implants alone or in combination with standard implants could be considered a viable treatment modality.

Immediate function of partial fixed rehabilitation with axial and tilted implants having intrasinus insertion.

Implant-supported rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla could be challenging because hyperpneumatization of the maxillary sinus might reduce the bone height. In this study, the authors report preliminary results of a new treatment modality for the partial fixed rehabilitation of posterior maxilla with immediate function by using 1 anterior axial implant and 1 posterior tilted implant with intrasinus mesial insertion. From 2009 to 2011, 10 patients (6 women and 4 men) with missing upper premolars and molars were recruited and treated according to this protocol. Each patient received a partial fixed bridge supported by 1 axial anterior implant and 1 posterior implant placed with a 30-degree mesial inclination and intrasinus insertion. Autologous bone was positioned to fill the maxillary sinus cavity and to cover the exposed implant surface after elevation of the anterior sinus membrane. A prosthesis with immediate function was positioned within 3 hours, whereas a CAD/CAM final restoration was delivered 6 months later. Follow-ups at 6 and 12 months, and then annually, were scheduled. At each follow-up, plaque level and bleeding scores were assessed, and radiographic evaluation of marginal bone level change was performed at 1 year. The patients were followed up for a mean of 50 months (range, 42-57 mo). No implants were lost, and all prostheses were stable and functional, reporting 100% of implant and prosthetic success rates. After 1 year, bone loss had a mean (SD) of 1.0 (0.4) and 0.9 (0.5) mm for axial and tilted implants, respectively, with no statistically significant differences between them (P > 0.05). The preliminary results suggest that this approach could allow the rehabilitation of posterior maxilla with immediate function in case of reduced bone volume, representing an alternative technique to bone grafting, short implants, and zygomatic or pterygoid implants.