Clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant‐supported fixed prostheses with cantilever extension in anterior mandible: A retrospective study

Objectives The objective of this study is to analyze the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant‐supported fixed protheses with cantilever extensions (ISFPCs) in the partially edentulous anterior mandible. Materials and Methods Patients who received anterior mandible implant restoration betwee...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical oral implants research 2024-09, Vol.35 (9), p.1180-1192
Hauptverfasser: Wang, Siyuan, Chen, Xiaoyu, Ling, Zhaoting, Xie, Yiwen, Chen, Cong, Shen, Xiaoting, He, Fuming
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives The objective of this study is to analyze the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant‐supported fixed protheses with cantilever extensions (ISFPCs) in the partially edentulous anterior mandible. Materials and Methods Patients who received anterior mandible implant restoration between January 2016 and December 2021 were included. Patients with two, three, or four continuous missing teeth receiving adjacent implant supported single‐unit crowns (ISSCs), ISFPCs, implant‐supported fixed protheses without cantilever extensions (ISFPNs) were divided into groups: ISSC+ISSC, ISFPC, ISSC+ISFPC, three‐unit ISFPN, ISFPC+ISFPC, or four‐unit ISFPN, respectively. We recorded and evaluated survival rates, mechanical and biological complications, peri‐implant marginal bone loss (MBL), esthetic outcomes, and patient perceptions. Statistical analysis was performed using linear mixed models (LMM). Results The study included 87 patients and 152 implants. No implant loss occurred during an average follow‐up of 3.48 ± 1.85 years (range: 1–7 years). According to LMM models, prosthetic type had a statistically significant impact on MBL during follow‐up periods, in favor of the ISFPC and ISFPC+ISFPC groups (0.16 ± 0.48 mm vs. 0.51 ± 0.49 mm, p = .034; 0.22 ± 0.49 mm vs. 0.60 ± 0.62 mm, p = .043, respectively). Mechanical and biological complications were relatively low and comparable. The four‐unit ISFPC group had higher subjective esthetic scores compared with the ISSC+ISSC group (98.6 vs. 83.8, p 
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/clr.14310