UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Bone level changes at implants supporting crowns or fixed partial dentures with or without cantilevers


Hälg, G A; Schmid, J; Hämmerle, C H F (2008). Bone level changes at implants supporting crowns or fixed partial dentures with or without cantilevers. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 19(10):983-990.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze whether or not a cantilever extension on a fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) supported by implants increased the amount of peri-implant bone loss or technical complications compared with reconstructions without cantilevers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four partially dentate patients with a total of 54 FDPs supported by 78 implants were enrolled in the study. Twenty-seven FDPs were with cantilever and 27 FDPs were without cantilever (control group). All FDPs were supported by one or two implants and were located in the posterior maxilla or mandible. The primary outcome variable was change in peri-implant marginal bone level from the time of FDP placement to the last follow-up visit. FDPs were under functional loading for a period of 3 up to 12.7 years. Statistical analysis was carried out with Student's t-test. Regression analyses were carried out to evaluate the influence of confounding factors on the peri-implant bone level change. In addition, implant survival rates were calculated and technical complications assessed. RESULTS: After a mean observation period of 5.3 years, the mean peri-implant bone loss for the FDPs with cantilevers was 0.23 mm (SD+/-0.63 mm) and 0.09 mm (SD+/-0.43 mm) for FDPs without cantilever. Concerning the bone level change at implants supporting FDPs with or without cantilevers no statistically significant differences were found. The regression analysis revealed that jaw of implant placement had a statistically significant influence on peri-implant bone loss. When the bone loss in the cantilever group and the control group were compared within the maxilla or mandible separately, no statistically significant difference was found. Implant survival rates reached 95.7% for implants supporting cantilever prostheses and 96.9% for implants of the control group. Five FDPs in the cantilever group showed minor technical complications, none were observed in the control group. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study it was concluded that cantilever on FDPs did not lead to a higher implant failure rate and did not lead to more bone loss around supporting implants compared with implants supporting conventional FDPs. In contrast to these results more technical complications were observed in the group reconstructed with cantilever.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze whether or not a cantilever extension on a fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) supported by implants increased the amount of peri-implant bone loss or technical complications compared with reconstructions without cantilevers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-four partially dentate patients with a total of 54 FDPs supported by 78 implants were enrolled in the study. Twenty-seven FDPs were with cantilever and 27 FDPs were without cantilever (control group). All FDPs were supported by one or two implants and were located in the posterior maxilla or mandible. The primary outcome variable was change in peri-implant marginal bone level from the time of FDP placement to the last follow-up visit. FDPs were under functional loading for a period of 3 up to 12.7 years. Statistical analysis was carried out with Student's t-test. Regression analyses were carried out to evaluate the influence of confounding factors on the peri-implant bone level change. In addition, implant survival rates were calculated and technical complications assessed. RESULTS: After a mean observation period of 5.3 years, the mean peri-implant bone loss for the FDPs with cantilevers was 0.23 mm (SD+/-0.63 mm) and 0.09 mm (SD+/-0.43 mm) for FDPs without cantilever. Concerning the bone level change at implants supporting FDPs with or without cantilevers no statistically significant differences were found. The regression analysis revealed that jaw of implant placement had a statistically significant influence on peri-implant bone loss. When the bone loss in the cantilever group and the control group were compared within the maxilla or mandible separately, no statistically significant difference was found. Implant survival rates reached 95.7% for implants supporting cantilever prostheses and 96.9% for implants of the control group. Five FDPs in the cantilever group showed minor technical complications, none were observed in the control group. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study it was concluded that cantilever on FDPs did not lead to a higher implant failure rate and did not lead to more bone loss around supporting implants compared with implants supporting conventional FDPs. In contrast to these results more technical complications were observed in the group reconstructed with cantilever.

Citations

29 citations in Web of Science®
26 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

72 downloads since deposited on 20 Oct 2008
23 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2008
Deposited On:20 Oct 2008 10:37
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 12:30
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell
ISSN:0905-7161
Additional Information:The definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com
Publisher DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01556.x
PubMed ID:18828813
Permanent URL: http://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-4331

Download

[img]
Preview
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 1MB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations