» Articles » PMID: 30758878

Comparison of Three Different Types of Implant-supported Fixed Dental Prostheses: A Long-term Retrospective Study of Clinical Outcomes and Cost-effectiveness

Overview
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2019 Feb 14
PMID 30758878
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To study the performance of 2-3 posterior bone-level dental implants constructed with either three non-splinted crowns (NSC), three splinted crowns (SC), or a 3-unit implant-supported bridge over two implants (ISB).

Material And Methods: Patients treated with three metal-ceramic NSC, SC, or an ISB were included in the present retrospective study. Implant survival and success rate as well as all biological and technical complications were collected. The cost associated with each of the treatment options was evaluated in the comparative analysis.

Results: One hundred and forty-five patients (40 NSC, 52 SC, and 53 in the ISB) receiving 382 bone-level implants (120 NSC, 106 ISB, and 156 SC) were included (mean follow-up of 76.2 months). Lack of success was observed in 33.8% of the total patient sample, being lower in the ISB group. Implant survival rates were 92.5% in the NSC, 100% in the ISB, and 88.5% in the SC, with significant difference noted between the ISB and SC (p = 0.01). Overall, 9.9% of the total implants were found to have peri-implantitis (PI), with 16.7% in the SC, 7.5% in the NSC, and 2.8% in the ISB. Patients presenting prosthodontic complications were significantly higher in NSC (32.5%) than ISB (13.2%) and SC (15.4%). The total cost of the ISB group was significantly lower when compared to the NSC and SC groups (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: An 3-unit implant-supported bridge restoring 2 implants seems to present the most ideal long-term therapeutic solution, among the investigated approaches in this study, in rehabilitating a 3-unit edentulous area.

Citing Articles

Four-mm-short implants in the rehabilitation of posterior atrophic jaws: A retrospective study on 212 patients with a mean follow-up of 8.02 years.

Barausse C, Pistilli R, Bonifazi L, Tayeb S, Pellegrino G, Ravida A Clin Oral Implants Res. 2024; 35(12):1607-1615.

PMID: 39165092 PMC: 11629446. DOI: 10.1111/clr.14349.


Up to a 15-Year Survival Rate and Marginal Bone Resorption of 1780 Implants with or without Microthreads: A Multi Center Retrospective Study.

Oh J, Pyo S, Chang J, Kim S J Clin Med. 2023; 12(6).

PMID: 36983425 PMC: 10057595. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12062425.


A comparison of marginal bone loss, survival rate, and prosthetic complications in implant-supported splinted and nonsplinted restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shah A, Patel P, Trivedi A, Shah A, Desai N, Talati M J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2022; 22(2):111-121.

PMID: 36511022 PMC: 9132503. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_365_21.


Long-term effect of implant-abutment connection type on marginal bone loss and survival of dental implants.

Kim Y, Lee J, Um H, Chang B, Lee J J Periodontal Implant Sci. 2022; 52(6):496-508.

PMID: 36468468 PMC: 9807847. DOI: 10.5051/jpis.2200960048.


Finite Element Analysis of a New Non-Engaging Abutment System for Three-Unit Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses.

Byun S, Seo J, Cho R, Yi S, Kim L, Han H Bioengineering (Basel). 2022; 9(10).

PMID: 36290451 PMC: 9598935. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9100483.