Share Page:

Volume 31 , Issue 4
July/August 2016

Pages 891–899

Partial Rehabilitation with Distally Tilted and Straight Implants in the Posterior Maxilla with Immediate Loading Protocol: A Retrospective Cohort Study with 5-Year Follow-up

Bruno M. T. Queridinha, DDS, MSc/Ricardo F. Almeida, DDS, MSc, PhD/António Felino, DDS, PhD/Miguel de Araújo Nobre, RDH, MSc Epi/Paulo Maló, DDS, PhD

PMID: 27447158
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.4324

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of fixed partial prostheses in the posterior maxilla with two axially placed implants or one implant placed distally tilted and one axially placed implant following an immediate loading protocol. Materials and Methods: A sample of 60 patients was divided into two groups—group 1: 30 patients rehabilitated with one axially placed implant and one implant placed distally tilted in the posterior maxilla; group 2: 30 patients rehabilitated with two axially placed implants in the posterior maxilla. Outcome measures were implant survival based on function, marginal bone resorption, and the incidence of mechanical and biologic complications at 5 years; inferential statistics were used to analyze the intergroup and intragroup differences. The level of significance was set at 5%. Results: No significant differences were found between both groups in survival, complications, or marginal bone resorption. One axially placed implant was lost at 58 months in group 1, rendering a cumulative survival estimate at 5 years of 96.7% and 98.3% in group 1 and the total sample, respectively (P = .317). Mechanical complications occurred in 16 patients (26.7%; n = 8 patients in each group; [P > .999]), consisting of fractures in the provisional prosthesis (n = 8 patients), chipped ceramics of the definitive prosthesis (n = 2 patients), loosening of prosthetic components (n = 5 patients), and fracture of an attachment screw (n = 1 patient). Biologic complications occurred in 5 patients (8.3%; group 1 = 4 patients; group 2 = 1 patient; [P = .161]), consisting of peri-implant pathology. The mean ± SD marginal bone loss was 2.02 ± 0.36 mm and 1.90 ± 0.69 mm for groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = .235). In group 1, the mean ± SD marginal bone loss was 1.92 ± 0.48 mm and 2.11 ± 0.44 mm for the implant placed distally tilted and axially placed implant, respectively; the difference was significant (P < .001). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the use of implants placed distally tilted together with axially placed implants or two axially placed implants in the fixed partial rehabilitation of the posterior maxilla are viable treatment alternatives.

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.


© 2018 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us