SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Meandros Medical And Dental Journal / 2026 / Volume: 22 Issue: 1

Evaluation of the Clinical Success of Implant - Supported Restorations- A Retrospective Study with at Least Two Years of Follow-up

Gamze Paken(USAK UNIVERSITY)
Cansu Gül Koca(USAK UNIVERSITY)
Merve Ünal(UŞAK ÜNİVERSİTESİ)
Pages
—
Publication Date
2021-04-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Clinically, given the long-term maintenance of soft and hard tissue health, successful results can be achieved with a two-member fixed prosthetic rehabilitation plan on two implants.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: This retrospective clinical study aimed to investigate the long-term clinical success of dental implants restored with splinted or non-splinted posterior prostheses with different retention systems.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Fifty patients who had undergone dental implant surgery and prosthesis treatment and had a follow-up period of at least 2 years were included in this study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Clinically, given the long-term maintenance of soft and hard tissue health, successful results can be achieved with a two-member fixed prosthetic rehabilitation plan on two implants.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Marginal bone loss · prosthetic rehabilitation · soft tissue-implant interactions

Abstract

Objective: This retrospective clinical study aimed to investigate the long-term clinical success of dental implants restored with splinted or non-splinted posterior prostheses with different retention systems. Materials and Methods: Fifty patients who had undergone dental implant surgery and prosthesis treatment and had a follow-up period of at least 2 years were included in this study. Marginal bone loss was measured from the surrounding bone levels on the mesial and distal surfaces of the implants using a millimetre ruler on panoramic radiographs. The plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were also measured. The Mann-Whitney U test and ANOVA test were used for statistical analysis. Results: The mean values of mesial and distal bone loss were 0.72±0.81 and 0.62±0.58, respectively. The correlation coefficient between mesial and distal bone loss was 0.431; thus, a significant difference was found (p 0.05). Conclusion: Clinically, given the long-term maintenance of soft and hard tissue health, successful results can be achieved with a two-member fixed prosthetic rehabilitation plan on two implants.

🔖

Cite This Article

Paken, G., Koca, C. G., Ünal, M. (2021). Evaluation of the Clinical Success of Implant - Supported Restorations- A Retrospective Study with at Least Two Years of Follow-up. Meandros Medical And Dental Journal, Volume: 22 Issue: 1. https://doi.org/10.4274/meandros.galenos.2021.56688

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (35)

  1. Carpentieri J, Greenstein G, Cavallaro J. Hierarchy of restorative space required for different types of dental implant prostheses. J Am Dent Assoc 2019; 150: 695-706.
  2. Gupta R, Gupta N, Weber KK. Dental Implants. 2020 Aug 11. In: StatPearls \[Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020 Jan.
  3. Renvert S, Persson GR, Pirih FQ, Camargo PM. Peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis: Case definitions and diagnostic considerations. J Periodontol 2018; 89: 304-12.
  4. Misch CE. Contemporary Implant Dentistry. St. Louis: Mosby, 2007: 77-9.
  5. von Stein-Lausnitz M, Nickenig HJ, Wolfart S, Neumann K, von Stein-Lausnitz A, Spies BC, et al. Survival rates and complication behaviour of tooth implant-supported, fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2019; 88: 103167.
  6. Gomes GH, Misawa MYO, Fernandes C, Pannuti CM, Saraiva L, Huynh-Ba G, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the survival rate of implants placed in previously failed sites. Braz Oral Res 2018; 32: 27.
  7. Berglundh T PL, Klinge B. A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years. J Clin Periodontol 2002; 29: 197-212.
  8. Daubert DM, Weinstein BF, Bordin S, Leroux BG, Flemming TF. Prevalence and predictive factors for peri-implant disease and implant failure: a cross-sectional analysis. J Periodontol 2015; 86: 337-47.
  9. Berglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo MG, Avila-Ortiz G, Blanco J, Camargo PM, et al. Peri-implant diseases and conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Periodontol 2018; 89: 313-8.
  10. Jivraj S. Screw versus cemented implant restorations: The decision-making process. J Dent Implant 2018; 8: 9-19.
  11. Agar JR, Cameron SM, Hughbanks JC, Parker MH. Cement removal from restorations luted to titanium abutments with simulated subgingival margins. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78: 43-7.
  12. Linkevicius T, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Linkeviciene L, Maslova N, Puriene A. The influence of the cementation margin position on the amount of undetected cement. A prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 71-6.
  13. Sılness J, Loe H. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. II. correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condtion. Acta Odontol Scand 1964; 22: 121-35.
  14. Loe H, Silness J. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. I. prevalence and severity. Acta Odontol Scand 1963; 21: 533-51.
  15. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90: 121-32.
  16. Jivraj S, Chee W. Treatment planning of implants in the aesthetic zone. Br Dent J 2006; 201: 77-89.
  17. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986; 1: 11-25.
  18. Frost HM. Bone “mass” and the “mechanostat”: a proposal. Anat Rec 1987; 219: 1-9.
  19. Carter DR, Fyhrie DP, Whalen RT. Trabecular bone density and loading history: regulation of connective tissue biology by mechanical energy. J Biomech 1987; 20: 785-94.
  20. Lee CT, Huang YW, Zhu L, Weltman R. Prevalences of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2017; 62: 1-12.
  21. Vélez J, Peláez J, López-Suárez C, Agustín-Panadero R, Tobar C, Suárez MJ. Influence of Implant Connection, Abutment Design and Screw Insertion Torque on Implant-Abutment Misfit. J Clin Med 2020; 9: 2365.
  22. Shi JY, Xu FY, Zhuang LF, Gu YX, Qiao SC, Lai HC. Long-term outcomes of narrow diameter implants in posterior jaws: A retrospective study with at least 8-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018; 29: 76-81.
  23. Misch CE. Short dental implants: a literature review and rationale for use. Dent Today 2005; 24: 64-6.
  24. Mendonça JA, Francischone CE, Senna PM, Matos de Oliveira AE, Sotto-Maior BS. A retrospective evaluation of the survival rates of splinted and non-splinted short dental implants in posterior partially edentulous jaws. J Periodontol 2014; 85: 787-94.
  25. Alrabiah M, Al Deeb M, Alsahhaf A, AlFawaz YF, Al-Aali KA, Vohra F, et al. Clinical and radiographic assessment of narrow-diameter and regular-diameter implants in the anterior and posterior jaw: 2 to 6 years of follow-up. J Periodontal Implant Sci 2020; 50: 97-105.
  26. Al-Aali KA, ArRejaie AS, Alrahlah A, AlFawaz YF, Abduljabbar T, Vohra F. Clinical and radiographic peri-implant health status around narrow diameter implant-supported single and splinted crowns. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019; 21: 386-90.
  27. Vigolo P, Mutinelli S, Zaccaria M, Stellini E. Clinical evaluation of marginal bone level change around multiple adjacent implants restored with splinted and nonsplinted restorations: a 10-year randomized controlled trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015; 30: 411-8.
  28. Becker K, Mihatovic I, Golubovic V, Schwarz F. Impact of abutment material and dis-/re-connection on soft and hard tissue changes at implants with platform-switching. J Clin Periodontol 2012; 39: 774-80.
  29. Canullo L, Bignozzi I, Cocchetto R, Cristalli MP, Iannello G. Immediate positioning of a definitive abutment versus repeated abutment replacements in post-extractive implants: 3-year follow-up of a randomised multicentre clinical trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2010; 3: 285-96.
  30. Iglhaut G, Becker K, Golubovic V, Schliephake H, Mihatovic I. The impact of dis-/reconnection of laser microgrooved and machined implant abutments on soft- and hard-tissue healing. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 391-7.
  31. Rodríguez X, Vela X, Méndez V, Segalà M, Calvo-Guirado JL, Tarnow DP. The effect of abutment dis/reconnections on peri-implant bone resorption: a radiologic study of platform-switched and non-platform-switched implants placed in animals. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24: 305-11.
  32. Brägger U. Use of radiographs in evaluating success, stability and failure in implant dentistry. Periodontol 2000 1998; 17: 77-88.
  33. Albrektsson T, Zarb GA. Current interpretations of the osseointegrated response: clinical significance. Int J Prosthodont 1993; 6: 95-105.
  34. Malmstrom H, Gupta B, Ghanem A, Cacciato R, Ren Y, Romanos GE. Success rate of short dental implants supporting single crowns and fixed bridges. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27: 1093-8.
  35. Weber HP, Kim DM, Ng MW, Hwang JW, Fiorellini JP. Peri-implant soft-tissue health surrounding cement- and screw-retained implant restorations: a multi-center, 3-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006; 17: 375-9.