Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2022.14.4.223

A retrospective comparison of clinical outcomes of implant restorations for posterior edentulous area: 3-unit bridge supported by 2 implants vs 3 splinted implant-supported crowns  

Yi, Yuseung (Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University Dental Hospital, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Heo, Seong-Joo (Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University Dental Hospital, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Koak, Jai-Young (Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University Dental Hospital, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Kim, Seong-Kyun (Department of Prosthodontics, Seoul National University Dental Hospital, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics / v.14, no.4, 2022 , pp. 223-235 More about this Journal
Abstract
PURPOSE. To compare the clinical outcomes of two types of implant restoration for posterior edentulous area, 3-unit bridge supported by 2 implants and 3 implant-supported splinted crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The data included 127 implant-supported fixed restorations in 85 patients: 37 restorations of 3-unit bridge supported by 2 implants (2-IB), 37 restorations of 3 implant-supported splinted crowns (3-IC), and 53 single restorations (S) as controls. Peri-implantitis and mechanical complications that occurred for 14 years were analyzed by multivariable Cox regression model. Kaplan-Meier curves and the multivariable Cox regression model were used to analyze the success and survival of implants. RESULTS. Peri-implantitis occurred in 28.4% of 2-IB group, 37.8% of 3-IC group, and 28.3% of S control group with no significant difference. According to the implant position, middle implants (P2) of the 3-IC group had the highest risk of peri-implantitis. The 3-IC group showed a lower mechanical complication rate (7.2%) than the 2-IB (16.2%) and S control group (20.8%). The cumulative success rate was 52.8% in S (control) group, 62.2% in 2-IB group, and 60.4% in 3-IC group. The cumulative survival rate was 98.1% in S (control) group, 98.6% in 2-IB group, and 95.5% in 3-IC group. There was no significant difference in the success and survival rate according to the restoration type. CONCLUSION. The restoration type was not associated with the success and survival of implants. The risk of mechanical complications was reduced in 3 implant-supported splinted crowns. However, the middle implants of the 3 implant-supported splinted crowns had a higher risk of peri-implantitis.
Keywords
Implant 3-unit bridge; Implant splinted crown; Implant prosthesis with pontic; Implant complication;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 3  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Attard N, Zarb GA. Implant prosthodontic management of posterior partial edentulism: long-term follow-up of a prospective study. J Can Dent Assoc 2002; 68:118-24.
2 Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants in posterior partially edentulous patients. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:189-96.
3 Rangert B, Jemt T, Jorneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:241-7.
4 Gunne J, Jemt T, Linden B. Implant treatment in partially edentulous patients: a report on prostheses after 3 years. Int J Prosthodont 1994;7:143-8.
5 Eliasson A, Eriksson T, Johansson A, Wennerberg A. Fixed partial prostheses supported by 2 or 3 implants: a retrospective study up to 18 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:567-74.
6 Ravida A, Tattan M, Askar H, Barootchi S, Tavelli L, Wang HL. Comparison of three different types of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A long-term retrospective study of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30:295-305.   DOI
7 Yi YJ, Lee JY, Kim YK. Comparative clinical study of three-unit fixed partial prostheses supported by two or three implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:1110-5.   DOI
8 Yi Y, Heo SJ, Koak JY, Kim SK. Mechanical complications of implant-supported restorations with internal conical connection implants: A 14-year retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 2021:S0022-3913(21)00408-X.
9 Berglundh T, Armitage G, Araujo MG, Avila-Ortiz G, Blanco J, Camargo PM, Chen S, Cochran D, Derks J, Figuero E, Hammerle CHF, Heitz-Mayfield LJA, Huynh-Ba G, Iacono V, Koo KT, Lambert F, McCauley L, Quirynen M, Renvert S, Salvi GE, Schwarz F, Tarnow D, Tomasi C, Wang HL, Zitzmann N. Peri-implant diseases and conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 world workshop on the classification of peri-odontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions. J Clin Periodontol 2018;45:S286-91.   DOI
10 Souza AB, Alshihri A, Kammerer PW, Araujo MG, Gallucci GO. Histological and micro-CT analysis of peri-implant soft and hard tissue healing on implants with different healing abutments configurations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:1007-15.   DOI
11 Yi Y, Koak JY, Kim SK, Lee SJ, Heo SJ. Comparison of implant component fractures in external and internal type: A 12-year retrospective study. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10:155-62.   DOI
12 Shi JY, Xu FY, Zhuang LF, Gu YX, Qiao SC, Lai HC. Longterm 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.
13 Clelland NL, Seidt JD, Daroz LG, McGlumphy EA. Comparison of strains for splinted and nonsplinted implant prostheses using three-dimensional image correlation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:953-9.
14 Alhammadi SH, Burnside G, Milosevic A. Clinical outcomes of single implant supported crowns versus 3-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in Dubai Health Authority: a retrospective study. BMC Oral Health 2021;21:171.
15 Ioannidis A, Heierle L, Hammerle CHF, Husler J, Jung RE, Thoma DS. Prospective randomized controlled clinical study comparing two types of two-piece dental implants supporting fixed reconstructions-Results at 5 years of loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30: 1126-33.   DOI
16 Yi Y, Koo KT, Schwarz F, Ben Amara H, Heo SJ. Association of prosthetic features and peri-implantitis: A cross-sectional study. J Clin Periodontol 2020;47:392-403.   DOI
17 Jemt T, Lekholm U. Oral implant treatment in posterior partially edentulous jaws: a 5-year follow-up report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1993;8:635-40.
18 Wyatt CC, Zarb GA. Treatment outcomes of patients with implant-supported fixed partial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13:204-11.
19 Lekholm U, van Steenberghe D, Hermann I, Bolender, C, Folmer, T, Gunne J, Henry P, Higuchi K, Laney W, Linden U. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous jaws: a prospective 5-year multicenter study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1994; 9:627-35.
20 Rasband WS. ImageJ. US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/, 1997-2018.
21 Karlsson K, Derks J, Hakansson J, Wennstrom JL, Molin Thoren M, Petzold M, Berglundh T. Technical complications following implant-supported restorative therapy performed in Sweden. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:603-11.   DOI
22 Adler L, Buhlin K, Jansson L. Survival and complications: A 9- to 15-year retrospective follow-up of dental implant therapy. J Oral Rehabil 2020;47:67-77.   DOI
23 Guichet DL, Yoshinobu D, Caputo AA. Effect of splinting and interproximal contact tightness on load transfer by implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87: 528-35.   DOI