Effect of cantilever extension on bone loss in mandibular complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis about 3 and 4 implants.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Ana Larisse Carneiro Pereira, Ana Clara Soares Paiva Tôrres, Maria de Fátima Trindade Pinto Campos, Laêrcio Almeida de Melo, Euler Maciel Dantas, Gustavo Augusto Seabra Barbosa, Adriana da Fonte Porto Carreiro
{"title":"Effect of cantilever extension on bone loss in mandibular complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis about 3 and 4 implants.","authors":"Ana Larisse Carneiro Pereira, Ana Clara Soares Paiva Tôrres, Maria de Fátima Trindade Pinto Campos, Laêrcio Almeida de Melo, Euler Maciel Dantas, Gustavo Augusto Seabra Barbosa, Adriana da Fonte Porto Carreiro","doi":"10.11607/ijp.8347","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Statement of problem: </strong>The assessment of bone loss around implants has been widely studied, but the effect of cantilever length as a risk factor is not fully understood.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The objective of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the peri-implant bone loss of mandibular complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis supported (FPS) by 3 and 4 implants and to correlate with the size of the horizontal and vertical distal cantilever at prosthesis installation (T1) and after one year (T2).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>72 external hexagon (EH) type implants were installed in 20 participants. Of these, 24 support FPS with 3 implants (GI3) and 48 with 4 implants (GI4). The inferior implants were named 1, 2, 3, and 4 according to their location in the mandibular arch, in a clockwise direction. Digital periapical radiographs were taken at times T1 and T2 for analysis and measurement of peri-implant bone loss. The horizontal and vertical distal cantilevers were measured with a digital caliper and correlated with peri-implant bone loss.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The survival rate of implants in GI3 was 91.66%, in GI4 it was 97.91%. The mean bone loss in GI3 was 0.88 (± 0.89) mm and in GI4 it was 0.58 (± 0.78) mm (<i>P</i> = 0.225). There was no correlation between distal horizontal cantilevers and bone loss in the studied groups, with GI3 being -0.25 (<i>P</i>=0.197) and GI4-0.22 (0.129). Larger vertical cantilevers of implants 1 (<i>P</i>=0.018), 3 (<i>P</i>=0.015) and 4 (<i>P</i>=0.045) correlated with greater bone loss in GI4.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The number of implants in FPS did not influence peri-implant bone loss after 1 year of follow-up. Larger vertical cantilevers influenced greater bone loss in complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis supported by 4 implants. Int J Prosthodont. 10.11607/ijp.8347.</p>","PeriodicalId":50292,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Prosthodontics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8347","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Statement of problem: The assessment of bone loss around implants has been widely studied, but the effect of cantilever length as a risk factor is not fully understood.

Purpose: The objective of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the peri-implant bone loss of mandibular complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis supported (FPS) by 3 and 4 implants and to correlate with the size of the horizontal and vertical distal cantilever at prosthesis installation (T1) and after one year (T2).

Materials and methods: 72 external hexagon (EH) type implants were installed in 20 participants. Of these, 24 support FPS with 3 implants (GI3) and 48 with 4 implants (GI4). The inferior implants were named 1, 2, 3, and 4 according to their location in the mandibular arch, in a clockwise direction. Digital periapical radiographs were taken at times T1 and T2 for analysis and measurement of peri-implant bone loss. The horizontal and vertical distal cantilevers were measured with a digital caliper and correlated with peri-implant bone loss.

Results: The survival rate of implants in GI3 was 91.66%, in GI4 it was 97.91%. The mean bone loss in GI3 was 0.88 (± 0.89) mm and in GI4 it was 0.58 (± 0.78) mm (P = 0.225). There was no correlation between distal horizontal cantilevers and bone loss in the studied groups, with GI3 being -0.25 (P=0.197) and GI4-0.22 (0.129). Larger vertical cantilevers of implants 1 (P=0.018), 3 (P=0.015) and 4 (P=0.045) correlated with greater bone loss in GI4.

Conclusion: The number of implants in FPS did not influence peri-implant bone loss after 1 year of follow-up. Larger vertical cantilevers influenced greater bone loss in complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis supported by 4 implants. Int J Prosthodont. 10.11607/ijp.8347.

悬臂伸展对下颌完整拱形种植体支撑固定修复体(3 和 4 个种植体)骨质流失的影响。
问题简介:种植体周围骨质流失的评估已被广泛研究,但悬臂长度作为风险因素的影响尚未完全明了。目的:这一随机对照临床试验的目的是比较下颌全弓种植体支持固定修复体(FPS)由 3 个和 4 个种植体支持时的种植体周围骨量损失,并与安装修复体时(T1)和一年后(T2)的水平和垂直远端悬臂的大小相关联。其中,24 人使用 3 个种植体支持 FPS(GI3),48 人使用 4 个种植体支持 FPS(GI4)。下部种植体根据其在下颌牙弓中的位置按顺时针方向分别命名为 1、2、3 和 4。在 T1 和 T2 时拍摄数字根尖周X光片,用于分析和测量种植体周围骨质流失情况。用数字卡尺测量远端水平和垂直悬臂,并将其与种植体周围骨质流失相关联:GI3的种植体存活率为91.66%,GI4为97.91%。GI3 的平均骨量损失为 0.88(± 0.89)毫米,GI4 为 0.58(± 0.78)毫米(P = 0.225)。在研究组中,远端水平悬臂与骨质流失之间没有相关性,GI3为-0.25(P=0.197),GI4为-0.22(0.129)。种植体 1(P=0.018)、3(P=0.015)和 4(P=0.045)的垂直悬臂越大,GI4 的骨质流失越多:结论:FPS种植体的数量不会影响1年随访后种植体周围的骨质流失。较大的垂直悬臂影响 4 个种植体支持的全弓种植体支持的固定修复体的骨质流失。Int J Prosthodont.10.11607/ijp.8347.
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
International Journal of Prosthodontics
International Journal of Prosthodontics 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Official Journal of the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO), the International College of Prosthodontists (ICP), the German Society of Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science (DGPro), and the Italian Academy of Prosthetic Dentistry (AIOP) Prosthodontics demands a clinical research emphasis on patient- and dentist-mediated concerns in the management of oral rehabilitation needs. It is about making and implementing the best clinical decisions to enhance patients'' quality of life via applied biologic architecture - a role that far exceeds that of traditional prosthetic dentistry, with its emphasis on materials and techniques. The International Journal of Prosthodontics is dedicated to exploring and developing this conceptual shift in the role of today''s prosthodontist, clinician, and educator alike. The editorial board is composed of a distinguished team of leading international scholars.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信