Double Full‐Arch Versus Single Full‐Arch, Four Implant‐Supported Rehabilitations: A Retrospective, 5‐Year Cohort Study
- 1 October 2014
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Prosthodontics
- Vol. 24 (4), 263-270
- https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12228
Abstract
To report the 5-year outcome of the All-on-4 treatment concept comparing double full-arch (G1) and single-arch (G2) groups. This retrospective cohort study included 110 patients (68 women and 42 men, average age of 55.5 years) with 440 NobelSpeedy groovy implants. One hundred sixty-five full-arch, fixed, immediately loaded prostheses in both jaws were followed for 5 years. G1 consisted of 55 patients with double-arch rehabilitations occluded with implant-supported fixed prostheses, and G2 consisted of 55 patients with maxillary single-arch rehabilitations or mandibular single-arch rehabilitations occluded with natural teeth or removable prostheses. The groups were matched for age (±6 years) and gender. Primary outcome measures were cumulative prosthetic (both interim and definitive) and implant survival (Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator). Secondary outcome measures were marginal bone levels at 5 years (through periapical radiographs and using the patient as unit of analysis) and the incidence of mechanical and biological complications. Differences in survival curves (log-rank test), marginal bone level (Mann-Whitney U test), and complications (chi-square test) were compared inferentially between the two groups using the patient as unit of analysis with significance level set at p ≤ 0.05. No dropouts occurred. Prosthetic survival was 100%. Five patients lost 5 implants (G1: n = 3; G2: n = 2) before 1 year, rendering an estimated cumulative survival rate of 95.5% (G1: 94.5%; G2: 96.4%; Kaplan-Meier, p = 0.645, nonsignificant). The average (SD) marginal bone level was 1.56 mm (0.89) at 5 years [G1: 1.45 mm (0.77); G2: 1.67 mm (0.99); p = 0.414]. The incidence rate of mechanical complications (in both interim and definitive prostheses) was 0.16 and 0.13 for G1 and G2, respectively (p = 0.032). The incidence rate of biological complications was 0.06 and 0.05 for G1 and G2, respectively (p = 0.669). Based on the results, rehabilitating double- or single-arch edentulous patients did not yield significant differences on survival curves. The incidence of mechanical complications was significantly higher for double-arch rehabilitated patients but nevertheless, these mechanical complications did not affect the long-term survival of either the prostheses or the implants.Keywords
Funding Information
- Nobel Biocare Services AG (2012-1103)
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Preliminary Report on the Outcome of Tilted Implants with Longer Lengths (20–25 mm) in Low‐Density Bone: One‐Year Follow‐Up of a Prospective Cohort StudyClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 2013
- Effects of Occlusal Overload on Peri‐Implant Tissue Health: A Systematic Review of Animal‐Model StudiesThe Journal of Periodontology, 2010
- Impact of implant number, distribution and prosthesis material on loading on implants supporting fixed prosthesesJournal of Oral Rehabilitation, 2010
- The Current and Future Treatment of EdentulismJournal of Prosthodontics, 2009
- Occlusion in implant dentistry. A review of the literature of prosthetic determinants and current conceptsAustralian Dental Journal, 2008
- The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studiesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2008
- Osteotome Sinus Floor Elevation and Simultaneous Placement of Implants – A 1‐Year Retrospective Study with Astra Tech ImplantsClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 2008
- Rehabilitation of Edentulous Mandibles by Means of Five TiUnite™ Implants After One‐Stage Surgery: A 1‐Year Retrospective Study of 90 PatientsClinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 2008
- Immediate functional loading of Brånemark dental implants. An l8‐month clinical follow‐up studyClinical Oral Implants Research, 1999
- Implant therapy alternatives for geriatric edentulous patientsGerodontology, 1993