Effectiveness of Restoration Strategies for Posterior Missing Teeth With Dental Implants: A Retrospective Study

IF 4.8 1区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Oral Implants Research Pub Date : 2025-05-02 DOI:10.1111/clr.14444

Jiayu Gao, Xuemei Tang, Chen Deng, Xiangqi Zhao, Yili Qu, Xingmei Yang, Yingying Wu, Lin Xiang, Yi Man

{"title":"Effectiveness of Restoration Strategies for Posterior Missing Teeth With Dental Implants: A Retrospective Study","authors":"Jiayu Gao, Xuemei Tang, Chen Deng, Xiangqi Zhao, Yili Qu, Xingmei Yang, Yingying Wu, Lin Xiang, Yi Man","doi":"10.1111/clr.14444","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AimThis study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a treatment strategy involving only implant restoration of the first molars (M1s) in cases where both M1s and second molars (M2s) lost.Materials and MethodsA retrospective study design compared two groups: one underwent simultaneous implant restoration of both M1s and M2s (Group 1), while the other underwent restoration of only M1s (Group 2). Statistical models were used to evaluate implant survival, complication‐free survival rates, cumulative treatment costs, peri‐implant conditions, and patient‐reported outcomes (PROMs).ResultsThis study included 247 patients, with 283 partially edentulous posterior regions. Group 1 consisted of 195 areas, and Group 2 comprised 88 regions. The analysis revealed no significant differences between the two groups in implant survival rates (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29–9.50, p = 0.567) or complication‐free survival rates (HR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.49–3.04, p = 0.678). Group 2 showed 1.7 times lower cumulative costs (β = −14.40, p < 0.001) and had no peri‐implantitis cases compared to a 16.2% incidence in Group 1 over 3 years (p = 0.043). Radiological assessment indicated that Group 2 was a protective factor against more than 0.5 mm marginal bone loss (β = 0.34, p = 0.012). PROMs demonstrated no significant differences in chewing ability for soft and hard foods between Group 1 and Group 2. Group 2 reported lower post‐surgery pain scores, while both groups had similar discomfort and food impaction rates.ConclusionsConsidering the limitations of this study, implant restoration with only M1s may be an effective and cost‐efficient treatment option for patients who have lost both M1s and M2s.","PeriodicalId":10455,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","volume":"97 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Implants Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14444","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

AimThis study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a treatment strategy involving only implant restoration of the first molars (M1s) in cases where both M1s and second molars (M2s) lost.Materials and MethodsA retrospective study design compared two groups: one underwent simultaneous implant restoration of both M1s and M2s (Group 1), while the other underwent restoration of only M1s (Group 2). Statistical models were used to evaluate implant survival, complication‐free survival rates, cumulative treatment costs, peri‐implant conditions, and patient‐reported outcomes (PROMs).ResultsThis study included 247 patients, with 283 partially edentulous posterior regions. Group 1 consisted of 195 areas, and Group 2 comprised 88 regions. The analysis revealed no significant differences between the two groups in implant survival rates (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.29–9.50, p = 0.567) or complication‐free survival rates (HR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.49–3.04, p = 0.678). Group 2 showed 1.7 times lower cumulative costs (β = −14.40, p < 0.001) and had no peri‐implantitis cases compared to a 16.2% incidence in Group 1 over 3 years (p = 0.043). Radiological assessment indicated that Group 2 was a protective factor against more than 0.5 mm marginal bone loss (β = 0.34, p = 0.012). PROMs demonstrated no significant differences in chewing ability for soft and hard foods between Group 1 and Group 2. Group 2 reported lower post‐surgery pain scores, while both groups had similar discomfort and food impaction rates.ConclusionsConsidering the limitations of this study, implant restoration with only M1s may be an effective and cost‐efficient treatment option for patients who have lost both M1s and M2s.

查看原文本刊更多论文

种植体修复后牙缺失策略的有效性：回顾性研究

目的本研究旨在评估第一磨牙（M1s）和第二磨牙（M2s）同时缺失的情况下，仅种植修复第一磨牙（M1s）的治疗策略的有效性。材料与方法采用回顾性研究设计比较两组：一组同时修复M1s和M2s（组1），另一组仅修复M1s（组2）。统计模型用于评估种植体存活率、无并发症生存率、累积治疗费用、种植体周围条件和患者报告的结果（PROMs）。结果本研究纳入247例患者，283例后牙区部分无牙。第1组有195个地区，第2组有88个地区。分析显示两组种植体存活率（风险比[HR] = 1.66, 95%可信区间[CI]: 0.29-9.50, p = 0.567）和无并发症生存率（HR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.49-3.04, p = 0.678）无显著差异。2组累计成本降低1.7倍(β = - 14.40, p <；0.001)，没有种植体周围炎病例，而组1在3年内的发病率为16.2% （p = 0.043）。放射学评估显示，第2组是防止大于0.5 mm边缘骨丢失的保护因素（β = 0.34, p = 0.012）。1组和2组小鼠对软硬食物的咀嚼能力无显著差异。第二组术后疼痛评分较低，而两组的不适和食物嵌塞率相似。结论：考虑到本研究的局限性，对于同时丢失M1s和M2s的患者，仅使用M1s种植体修复可能是一种有效且经济的治疗选择。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Oral Implants Research 医学-工程：生物医学

CiteScore

7.70

自引率

11.60%

发文量

149

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Clinical Oral Implants Research conveys scientific progress in the field of implant dentistry and its related areas to clinicians, teachers and researchers concerned with the application of this information for the benefit of patients in need of oral implants. The journal addresses itself to clinicians, general practitioners, periodontists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons and prosthodontists, as well as to teachers, academicians and scholars involved in the education of professionals and in the scientific promotion of the field of implant dentistry.