Clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported zirconia fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extension: A proof-of-principle study with a follow-up of at least 1 year.

OBJECTIVES: To test the reliability of full zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extension (FDPCs) after at least 1 year of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients in need of implant-supported single unit crowns (SUC) and FDPCs in posterior areas were enrolled. After implant placement, patients were rehabilitated with screw-retained full-zirconia FDPCs. Implant survival rate, pocket probing depth (PPD), presence/absence of bleeding on probing (BoP), and presence/absence of mechanical/technical complications were recorded. Mesial and distal radiographic marginal bone levels (mBLs) from baseline (i.e., recall appointment 3-6 months after implant loading [T0]) to the follow-up examination (i.e., latest recall appointment after at least 12 months after T0 [T1]), were calculated. RESULTS: Thirty patients with 34 FDPCs (31 SUCs and 3 FDPs) supported by 37 implants were available for analysis after a mean loading time of 2.6 ± 1.5 years (range: 13-87 months). No implants were lost. MBLs and mean PPD values did not change statistically significantly from T0 to T1 from 0.92 mm ± 0.42 to 0.96 mm ± 0.38 (95% CI: -0.07/0.17; p = .418) and from 2.99 mm ± 0.70 to 3.27 mm ± 0.71 (95% CI: -0.11/0.68; p = .25) respectively. Peri-implant mucositis was diagnosed in 22 cases. Screw-loosening and zirconia chipping occurred 1× in 4 patients. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present proof-of-principle study, the use of full-zirconia FDPCs in posterior areas seems a valid and safe short-term treatment option.

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.

BACKGROUND: Implant-supported restorations with cantilever extension may display high rates of biological and technical complications. PURPOSE: To report the outcomes of single-unit crowns with cantilever extension (SCCs). MATERIALS AND 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: 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: 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.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extension. A retrospective cohort study with a follow-up of at least 10 years.

AIM: To report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions (FDPCs) after a function time ≥10 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with FDPCs in posterior areas were clinically and radiographically re-evaluated. Mesial and distal radiographic marginal bone levels (mBLs) from baseline (i.e. delivery of FDPC) to the follow-up examination were calculated and compared between implant surfaces adjacent to and distant from the cantilever extension. Implant survival rate, pocket probing depth (PPD), presence/absence of bleeding on probing (BoP) and presence/absence of mechanical/technical and biological complications were recorded. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients with 30 FDPCs supported by 60 implants were re-evaluated after a mean loading time of 13.3 ± 2.7 years (range: 10-18.6 years). One diameter-reduced implant carrying a cantilever extension fractured, yielding a patient-based survival rate of 96.2% (95% CI: 0.95/1.0). The mean marginal bone level change was not statistically significantly different from baseline to follow-up (1.2 mm ± 0.9 to 1.6 mm ± 1.7; 95% CI: -0.1/0.9; p > .05). The mean PPD changed statistically significantly from 3.4 mm ± 0.7 to 3.7 mm ± 0.7 (95% CI: 0.04/0.6; p = .02). Loss of retention occurred ≥ 1x in 9 patients (34.6%, 95% CI: 0.44/0.83). At follow-up, peri-implant health was diagnosed in 12 (46.2%), peri-implant mucositis in 7 (26.9%) and peri-implantitis in 7 (26.9%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite a high rate of loss of retention, the use of implant-supported FDPCs in posterior areas represents a reliable long-term treatment option with a high implant survival rate and minimal peri-implant bone level changes irrespective of the location of the cantilever extension.