Share Page:

Volume 31 , Issue 3
May/June 2018

Pages 211–222

A Five-Year Retrospective Assay of Implant Treatments and Complications in Private Practice: Restorative Treatment Profiles of Long-Span, Implant-Supported Fixed and Removable Dental Prostheses

Vahed Parzham, DDS, DCD/Roy B. Judge, BDS, LDS, RCS, MDSc, PhD/Denise Bailey, BDS (Hons), MSc, Grad Cert

PMID: 29723313
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5553

Purpose: To describe the restorative treatment profiles of long-span (> three units), implant-supported dental prostheses (LIDPs) prescribed in 27 private practices in the state of Victoria, Australia, during the period from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009. The restorative treatment profiles of these prostheses refer to the framework/veneering materials, number of prosthetic units/supporting implants, location in the oral cavity, retention methods, and cantilever designs. LIDPs refer to implant-supported prostheses of fixed or removable design; namely, fixed partial dentures (IFPDs), fixed complete dentures (IFCDs), removable partial dentures (IRPDs), and complete overdentures (IODs). Materials and Methods: Private dental practitioners providing implant treatment in Victoria, Australia, were invited to enroll in this study, which was conducted through a dental practice-based research network (the eviDent Foundation). The enrolled practitioners’ clinical records of the implant treatments provided during the specified period were accessed for data collection. Descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, and linear mixed models were conducted for data analyses. Results: During the study period, 627 LIDPs were prescribed to 556 patients by 18 general dentists and 5 prosthodontists. LIDPs were more common in the maxilla than in the mandible except in the case of IODs. Of the fixed prostheses, 60% replaced missing teeth in more than one sextant, 33% in the anterior sextant, and 7% in the posterior sextant. The average number of prosthetic units per implant was higher in mandibular compared to maxillary IFPDs/IFCDs (2.5 vs 1.9, respectively, P < .001). Cantilever pontic(s) were present in 68% of IFCDs (more often in the mandible than in the maxilla) compared to 28% of IFPDs (use of cantilever pontics was about the same in the maxilla and mandible). Screw retention was the most commonly reported retention method in IFPDs/IFCDs (95%). Locator attachment was used for the majority of IRPDs/IODs (83%). Conclusion: The clinicians enrolled in this study preferred fixed over removable LIDPs for partially dentate and maxillary edentulous cases. For mandibular edentulous patients, IODs were prescribed more often than IFCDs. A retrievable retention design was favored for IFPDs/IFCDs. IFPDs were predominantly metal-ceramic, and metal-acrylic designs were more popular for IFCDs.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article


Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.


© 2020 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

IJP Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us