Share Page:

Volume 33 , Issue 4
July/August 2018

Pages 795–807

Impact of Implant Number on Mandibular Implant-Supported Profile Prostheses: A Systematic Review

Lívia Bonjardim Lima, MSc/Nayara Ribeiro de Freitas, DDS/Veridiana Resende Novais, PhD/Paulo Cézar Simamoto Júnior, PhD

PMID: 30024995
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.6243

Purpose: To assess studies on edentulous patients rehabilitated using mandibular implant-supported profile prostheses and analyze the impact of different numbers of implants used on the implant survival rate, peri-implant bone loss, and prosthesis survival rate. Materials and Methods: This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement and was registered on PROSPERO. The PubMed/MEDLINE database was searched for articles published before July 18, 2016. The study attempted to answer the following PICO question: In edentulous patients, do full-arch fixed prostheses supported by three implants have a satisfactory implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and prosthesis survival rate compared with those supported by different numbers of implants? Evidence levels of each study were evaluated using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM); methodologic quality was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Descriptive statistics were performed when applicable. Implant survival curves were constructed using the Kaplan-Meier method, and marginal bone loss was analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn’s, and Mann-Whitney tests. Results: This analysis included 21 published studies of 4,712 implants and 1,245 mandibular implant-supported profile prostheses in 1,245 patients. The patients were grouped by the number of implants used: group 1 (three implants) had an implant survival rate of 90%; group 2 (four implants) had a rate of 95%; and group 3 (five implants) had the lowest rate, 74%. Groups 1 and 3 had the lowest first-year bone losses (median: 0.73 and 0.70 mm, respectively), and were significantly different from group 2 (median: 1.31 mm; P < .001). Conclusion: Despite the limitations in the studies with low levels of evidence and the methodology of MeSH term research, it was concluded that the implant survival rate and first-year bone loss of full-arch fixed prostheses supported by three implants were satisfactory. However, the prosthesis survival rate was inferior to that of other groups, which suggests a longer follow-up of these rehabilitations.

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