Clinical performance of provisional screw-retained metal-free acrylic restorations in an immediate loading implant protocol: a 242 consecutive patients' report

Objective: To evaluate the clinical performance of provisional screw‐retained metal‐free acrylic restorations in an immediate loading implant protocol. Material and methods: Two hundred and forty‐two consecutive patients were selected retrospectively, who received 1011 implants and 311 immediate provisional screw‐retained implant restorations (2–4 h after implant surgery). The patients were monitored for a period of 2–3 months, until they were referred for a final restoration. The primary variables recorded include the survival time and the appearance of fractures in the provisional restoration, and the independent variables included age, sex, dental arch, type of restoration, type of attachment and components used, as well as cantilevers and opposing dentition. A survival analysis (Kaplan–Meier) and a Cox regression analysis were performed. Results: Twenty‐three restorations in 20 patients (8.26%, 95% CI 4.8–11.7) showed at least one fracture (7.39%). More than half of the new fractures (52%, 12 cases) occurred in the first 4 weeks. The cumulative survival probability observed was greater in mandible (P=0.05) and non‐cantilever restorations (P=0.001), and in those opposed by full restorations or natural teeth (P=0.001). With an opposing implant‐supported prosthesis, the risk of fracture was multiplied by 4.7, and the use of cantilevers as well as the location of the restoration in the maxilla multiply the risk by 3.4–3.5. Conclusions: Immediate provisional screw‐retained metal‐free implant‐supported restorations can be considered a reliable restoration (92.6% remain intact) for the healing period of 3 months. To cite this article: Suarez‐Feito JM, Sicilia A, Angulo J, Banerji S, Cuesta I, Millar B. Clinical performance of provisional screw‐retained metal‐free acrylic restorations in an immediate loading implant protocol: a 242 consecutive patients' report. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 21, 2010; 1360–1369. doi: 10.1111/j.1600‐0501.2010.01956.x