Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of marginal bone loss and implant success between axial and tilted implants in maxillary All-on-4 treatment concept rehabilitations after 5 years of follow-up.
Hopp, Milena; de Araújo Nobre, Miguel; Maló, Paulo.
Affiliation
  • Hopp M; Dr. Bernd Quantius & Milena Hopp, Private Practice of Implantology and Periodontology, Giesenkirchener Str. 40, Mönchengladbach 41238, Germany.
  • de Araújo Nobre M; Research and Development Department, Maló Clinic, Lisbon, Portugal.
  • Maló P; Oral Surgery Department, Maló Clinic, Lisbon, Portugal.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res ; 19(5): 849-859, 2017 Oct.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28766312
BACKGROUND: There is need for more scientific and clinical information on longer-term outcomes of tilted implants compared to implants inserted in an axial position. PURPOSE: Comparison of marginal bone loss and implant success after a 5-year follow-up between axial and tilted implants inserted for full-arch maxillary rehabilitation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The retrospective clinical study included 891 patients with 3564 maxillary implants rehabilitated according to the All-on-4 treatment concept. The follow-up time was 5 years. Linear mixed-effect models were performed to analyze the influence of implant orientation (axial/tilted) on marginal bone loss and binary logistic regression to assess the effect of patient characteristics on occurrence of marginal bone loss >2.8 mm. Only those patients with measurements of at least one axial and one tilted implant available were analyzed. This resulted in a data set of 2379 implants (1201 axial, 1178 tilted) in 626 patients (=reduced data set). RESULTS: Axial and tilted implants showed comparable mean marginal bone losses of 1.14 ± 0.71 and 1.19 ± 0.82 mm, respectively. Mixed model analysis indicated that marginal bone loss levels at 5 years follow up was not significantly affected by the orientation (axial/tilted) of the implants in the maxillary bone. Smoking and female gender were associated with marginal bone loss >2.8 mm in a logistic regression analysis. Five-year implant success rates were 96%. The occurrence of implant failure showed to be statistically independent from orientation. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study and considering a follow-up time of 5 years, it can be concluded that tilted implants behave similarly with regards to marginal bone loss and implant success in comparison to axial implants in full-arch rehabilitation of the maxilla. Longer-term outcomes (10 years +) are needed to verify this result.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Dental Implants / Alveolar Bone Loss / Jaw, Edentulous Type of study: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: En Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Journal subject: ODONTOLOGIA Year: 2017 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Germany Country of publication: United States

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Dental Implants / Alveolar Bone Loss / Jaw, Edentulous Type of study: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies Limits: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Language: En Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Journal subject: ODONTOLOGIA Year: 2017 Document type: Article Affiliation country: Germany Country of publication: United States