LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 26 , Issue 5
September/October 2011

Pages 1043–1050


Implant-Prosthodontic Rehabilitation of Anterior Partial Edentulism: A Clinical Review

Gerald Krennmair, MD, DMD, PhD/Rudolf Seemann, MD, DMD/Michael Weinländer, MD, DMD/Walther Wegscheider, MD, DMD, PhD/Eva Piehslinger, MD, DMD, PhD


PMID: 22010088

Purpose: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate implant survival/success rates and peri-implant parameters as well as patient satisfaction for uniformly designed implant-supported anterior maxillary or mandibular fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on patients with maxillary or mandibular anterior partial edentulism (all incisors missing) treated between 2002 and 2006 with a two-implant–supported four-unit FPD. All FPDs were of the same design: two implant abutments in the lateral incisor positions and two ovate pontics in the central incisor positions. Cumulative implant survival rates and peri-implant conditions (marginal bone loss, pocket depth, Plaque Index, Gingival Index, Bleeding Index, Periotest values) as well as the incidence and type of prosthodontic maintenance were evaluated. The patients’ subjective satisfaction rate was surveyed using multiple questionnaires with a 10-point scoring system (0 = not satisfied to 10 = highly satisfied). Results: Thirty-six of 38 patients (dropout: 5%) with 72 implants (50 maxillary and 22 mandibular implants, 25 maxillary and 11 mandibular FPDs) were available for follow-up after a mean observation period of 56.2 ± 10.3 months. High cumulative implant survival and success rates (100%) and healthy peri-implant parameters (mean marginal bone resorption: 1.8 ± 0.3 mm; mean pocket depth: 2.5 ± 1.0 mm; Periotest value: –4.5 ± 1.1; and Plaque/Bleeding/Gingival indices of 0 in 70% of sites [with significantly better results in the maxilla than in the mandible]) were achieved. The most frequent required prosthodontic maintenance efforts were maxillary recementation (3/25; 12%) and mandibular rebasing (2/11; 18.2%). A high score for satisfaction was obtained, although slightly better overall results were seen for maxillary than for mandibular FPDs. Conclusion: For all parameters evaluated, these FPDs proved to be a viable treatment procedure for anterior partial edentulism with good clinical and esthetic outcomes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:1043–1050

Key words: anterior region, clinical outcome, dental implants, fixed partial dentures, patient satisfaction


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.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help