Mohamed R Hussain, Mohamed M Shrif, Hesham I Othman, Hussain R Mohamed
{"title":"Comparative Study between Two Adjacent Implants Supported Crowns and One Implant Supported Cantilever Fixed Dental Prosthesis: An <i>In Vivo</i> Study.","authors":"Mohamed R Hussain, Mohamed M Shrif, Hesham I Othman, Hussain R Mohamed","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3771","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To assess hard as well as soft peri-implant tissues within cases having two lost adjacent anterior teeth treated through placing either two implants with two separate crowns or only an implant along with a crown with a cantilever, and evaluating the effect of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) restoration on cantilever design up to 18 months after functional loading.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty-seven participants (15 males and 12 females; mean age, 38.6 years; range 20-50 years) with missing two adjacent anterior teeth were treated with implant system (Flotecno implant system, Italy). In the first group (implant-implant metal ceramic group), we treated nine participants utilizing two adjacent implants with two separate single metal ceramic crowns. In the second group (implant-cantilever metal ceramic group), we treated nine participants by placing single implant with cantilever metal ceramic fixed dental prosthesis (FDP). In the third group (implant-cantilever PEEK group), we treated nine cases utilizing single implant with a cantilever PEEK FDP framework. Clinical and radiographic examinations were recorded. Marginal bone level, implant stability, and prosthetic complications were assessed during an 18-month follow-up period.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Marginal bone loss (MBL) exhibited similar measurements among all groups. The clinical outcomes did not address significant variance among all groups as regards implant stability within the period of follow-up. We also observed minor prosthetic complications. Participants were very satisfied within all groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Based on the limitations of our research, utilizing cantilever extensions has no influence on MBL as well as implant stability.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Mean marginal bone level exhibited a significant rise from baseline to 18 months for all groups, however, still within the clinically accepted range. Regarding implant stability, no significant variance was observed among all groups for 18 months. The cantilever FDP design facilitated prosthesis fabrication among those having laterals of narrow diameters. Further research is required to investigate such a particular concern due to a limited sample size in our research. How to cite this article: Hussain MR, Shrif MM, Othman HI, <i>et al.</i> Comparative Study between Two Adjacent Implants Supported Crowns and One Implant Supported Cantilever Fixed Dental Prosthesis: An <i>In Vivo</i> Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(10):983-991.</p>","PeriodicalId":35792,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","volume":"25 10","pages":"983-991"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3771","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: To assess hard as well as soft peri-implant tissues within cases having two lost adjacent anterior teeth treated through placing either two implants with two separate crowns or only an implant along with a crown with a cantilever, and evaluating the effect of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) restoration on cantilever design up to 18 months after functional loading.
Materials and methods: Twenty-seven participants (15 males and 12 females; mean age, 38.6 years; range 20-50 years) with missing two adjacent anterior teeth were treated with implant system (Flotecno implant system, Italy). In the first group (implant-implant metal ceramic group), we treated nine participants utilizing two adjacent implants with two separate single metal ceramic crowns. In the second group (implant-cantilever metal ceramic group), we treated nine participants by placing single implant with cantilever metal ceramic fixed dental prosthesis (FDP). In the third group (implant-cantilever PEEK group), we treated nine cases utilizing single implant with a cantilever PEEK FDP framework. Clinical and radiographic examinations were recorded. Marginal bone level, implant stability, and prosthetic complications were assessed during an 18-month follow-up period.
Results: Marginal bone loss (MBL) exhibited similar measurements among all groups. The clinical outcomes did not address significant variance among all groups as regards implant stability within the period of follow-up. We also observed minor prosthetic complications. Participants were very satisfied within all groups.
Conclusion: Based on the limitations of our research, utilizing cantilever extensions has no influence on MBL as well as implant stability.
Clinical significance: Mean marginal bone level exhibited a significant rise from baseline to 18 months for all groups, however, still within the clinically accepted range. Regarding implant stability, no significant variance was observed among all groups for 18 months. The cantilever FDP design facilitated prosthesis fabrication among those having laterals of narrow diameters. Further research is required to investigate such a particular concern due to a limited sample size in our research. How to cite this article: Hussain MR, Shrif MM, Othman HI, et al. Comparative Study between Two Adjacent Implants Supported Crowns and One Implant Supported Cantilever Fixed Dental Prosthesis: An In Vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(10):983-991.
目的：通过放置两个独立冠的种植体或仅放置一个带悬臂的种植体治疗两颗相邻前牙缺失的病例，评估种植体周围的硬组织和软组织，并评估聚醚醚酮（PEEK）修复在功能负荷后18个月对悬臂设计的影响。材料与方法：受试者27人(男15人，女12人；平均年龄38.6岁；年龄在20-50岁之间)，缺失两颗相邻前牙，采用种植系统（Flotecno种植系统，意大利）治疗。在第一组（种植体-种植体金属陶瓷组）中，我们使用两个相邻种植体和两个独立的单金属陶瓷冠治疗9名参与者。第二组（种植体-悬臂金属陶瓷组）采用单种植体置入悬臂金属陶瓷固定义齿（FDP）治疗9例。在第三组（种植体-悬臂式PEEK组）中，我们使用单种植体和悬臂式PEEK FDP框架治疗了9例患者。记录临床和影像学检查。在18个月的随访期间评估边缘骨水平、种植体稳定性和假体并发症。结果：边缘骨质流失（MBL）在所有组中表现出相似的测量结果。在随访期间，临床结果没有解决各组间关于种植体稳定性的显著差异。我们也观察到轻微的假体并发症。所有小组的参与者都非常满意。结论：基于本研究的局限性，使用悬臂扩展对MBL和种植体稳定性没有影响。临床意义：18个月后，各组平均边缘骨水平均有显著上升，但仍在临床可接受的范围内。在种植体稳定性方面，18个月各组间无显著差异。悬臂式FDP设计促进了具有窄直径侧边的假体制造。由于我们的研究样本量有限，需要进一步的研究来调查这一特殊问题。如何引用本文：Hussain先生，Shrif MM, Othman HI，等。两相邻种植体支撑冠与一种植体支撑悬臂式固定义齿的体内比较研究。[J]现代医学学报；2009;25(10):983-991。
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice (JCDP), is a peer-reviewed, open access MEDLINE indexed journal. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.thejcdp.com. The journal allows free access (open access) to its contents. Articles with clinical relevance will be given preference for publication. The Journal publishes original research papers, review articles, rare and novel case reports, and clinical techniques. Manuscripts are invited from all specialties of dentistry i.e., conservative dentistry and endodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthodontics, oral medicine and radiology, oral pathology, oral surgery, orodental diseases, pediatric dentistry, implantology, periodontics, clinical aspects of public health dentistry, and prosthodontics.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
