Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

The Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (대한구강악안면외과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Tilted implants for implant-supported fixed hybrid prostheses: retrospective review

  • Woo-Hyun Seok (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Pil-Young Yun (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital) ;
  • Na-Hee Chang (Department of Dental Hygiene, Section of Dentistry, Gangdong University) ;
  • Young-Kyun Kim (Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Section of Dentistry, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital)
  • Received : 2023.07.31
  • Accepted : 2023.09.18
  • Published : 2023.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: This review assessed the performance of implant-supported fixed hybrid prostheses in 21 patients who received a total of 137 implants between 2003 and 2010. The implants were evaluated for marginal bone resorption, complications, success rate, and survival rate based on their vertical angularity, type of bone graft, and measured implant stability. Materials and Methods: One-way ANOVA and chi-square tests were used to analyze the relationships among long-term evaluation factors and these variables. The mean initial bone resorption in the implant group with a vertical angle of more than 20° was 0.33 mm and mean final bone resorption was 0.76 mm. In contrast, the mean initial bone resorption in the implant group with a vertical angle of less than 10° was 1.19 mm and mean final bone resorption was 2.17 mm. Results: The results showed that mean bone resorption decreased with an increase in the vertical placement angle of the implants used in fixed hybrid prostheses, as well as in the group without additional bone grafts and those with high implant stability. The success rate of implants placed after bone grafting was found to be higher than those placed simultaneously. Conclusion: These results suggest that implant-supported fixed hybrid prostheses may be an effective treatment option for edentulous patients, and intentionally placing implants with high angularity may improve outcomes.

Keywords

References

  1. Kutkut A, Bertoli E, Frazer R, Pinto-Sinai G, Fuentealba Hidalgo R, Studts J. A systematic review of studies comparing conventional complete denture and implant retained overdenture. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2017.06.004
  2. Sivaramakrishnan G, Sridharan K. Comparison of implant supported mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures on quality of life: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. Aust Dent J 2016;61:482-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12416
  3. Egilmez F, Ergun G, Cekic-Nagas I, Bozkaya S. Implant-supported hybrid prosthesis: conventional treatment method for borderline cases. Eur J Dent 2015;9:442-8. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.163324
  4. Hyun DG. Fixed hybrid prosthesis. J Korean Acad Esthet Dent 2018;27:24-40. https://doi.org/10.15522/jkaed.2018.27.1.24
  5. Aglietta M, Siciliano VI, Zwahlen M, Bragger U, Pjetursson BE, Lang NP, et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:441-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01706.x
  6. Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, Sammartino G, Galindo-Moreno P, Trisi P, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent 2008;17:5-15. https://doi.org/10.1097/id.0b013e3181676059
  7. Mehta SP, Sutariya PV, Pathan MR, Upadhyay HH, Patel SR, Kantharia NDG. Clinical success between tilted and axial implants in edentulous maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2021;21:217-28. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_79_21
  8. Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Tilted versus axially placed dental implants: a meta-analysis. J Dent 2015;43:149-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.09.002
  9. Del Fabbro M, Ceresoli V. The fate of marginal bone around axial vs. tilted implants: a systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2014;7 Suppl 2:S171-89.
  10. Del Fabbro M, Bellini CM, Romeo D, Francetti L. Tilted implants for the rehabilitation of edentulous jaws: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:612-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00288.x
  11. Penarrocha Diago M, Maestre Ferrin L, Penarrocha Oltra D, Canullo L, Calvo Guirado JL, Penarrocha Diago M. Tilted implants for the restoration of posterior mandibles with horizontal atrophy: an alternative treatment. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;71:856-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2012.12.016
  12. Krekmanov L, Kahn M, Rangert B, Lindstrom H. Tilting of posterior mandibular and maxillary implants for improved prosthesis support. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2000;15:405-14.
  13. Capelli M, Zuffetti F, Del Fabbro M, Testori T. Immediate rehabilitation of the completely edentulous jaw with fixed prostheses supported by either upright or tilted implants: a multicenter clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:639-44.
  14. Malo P, Rangert B, Nobre M. "All-on-four" immediate-function concept with Branemark System implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5 Suppl 1:2-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00010.x
  15. Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Nunes M. The allon-4 concept for full-arch rehabilitation of the edentulous maxillae: a longitudinal study with 5-13 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:538-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12771
  16. Liu X, Pang F, Li Y, Jia H, Cui X, Yue Y, et al. Effects of different positions and angles of implants in maxillary edentulous jaw on surrounding bone stress under dynamic loading: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Comput Math Methods Med 2019;2019:8074096. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8074096
  17. Behnaz E, Ramin M, Abbasi S, Pouya MA, Mahmood F. The effect of implant angulation and splinting on stress distribution in implant body and supporting bone: a finite element analysis. Eur J Dent 2015;9:311-8. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.163235
  18. Clementini M, Morlupi A, Agrestini C, Barlattani A. Immediate versus delayed positioning of dental implants in guided bone regeneration or onlay graft regenerated areas: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2013;42:643-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2013.01.018
  19. Penarrocha-Diago M, Aloy-Prosper A, Penarrocha-Oltra D, CalvoGuirado JL, Penarrocha-Diago M. Localized lateral alveolar ridge augmentation with block bone grafts: simultaneous versus delayed implant placement: a clinical and radiographic retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:846-53. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2964
  20. Glauser R, Sennerby L, Meredith N, Ree A, Lundgren A, Gottlow J, et al. Resonance frequency analysis of implants subjected to immediate or early functional occlusal loading. Successful vs. failing implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:428-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01036.x
  21. Huang H, Wu G, Hunziker E. The clinical significance of implant stability quotient (ISQ) measurements: a literature review. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2020;10:629-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2020.07.004
  22. Benn DK. A review of the reliability of radiographic measurements in estimating alveolar bone changes. J Clin Periodontol 1990;17:14-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051x.1990.tb01041.x