A Retrospective Analysis of 800 Brånemark System Implants Following the All-on-Four™ Protocol
Balshi, T. J., Wolfinger, G. J., Slauch, R. W. and Balshi, S. F. (2013),
A Retrospective Analysis of 800 Brånemark System Implants Following the
All-on-Four™ Protocol. Journal of Prosthodontics.
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12089
Abstract
Purpose
The
purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate implant survival
rates in patients treated with the All-on-Four™ protocol according to
edentulous jaws, gender, and implant orientation (tilted vs. axial).
Materials and Methods
All
Brånemark System implants placed in patients following the All-on-Four™
protocol in a single private practice were separated into multiple
classifications (maxilla vs. mandible; male vs. female; tilted vs.
axial) by retrospective patient chart review. Inclusion criteria
consisted of any Brånemark System implant placed with the All-on-Four™
protocol from the clinical inception (May 2005) until December 2011.
Life tables were constructed to determine cumulative implant survival
rates (CSR). The arches, genders, and implant orientations were
statistically compared with ANOVA.
Results
One
hundred fifty-two patients, comprising 200 arches (800 implants) from
May 2005 until December 2011, were included in the study. Overall
implant CSR was 97.3% (778 of 800). Two hundred eighty-nine of 300
maxillary implants and 489 of 500 mandibular implants survived, for CSRs
of 96.3% and 97.8%, respectively. In male patients, 251 of 256 implants
(98.1%) remain in function while 527 of 544 implants (96.9%) in female
patients survived. Regarding implant orientation, 389 of 400 tilted
implants and 389 of 400 axial implants osseointegrated, for identical
CSRs of 97.3%. All comparisons were found to be statistically
insignificant. The prosthesis survival rate was 99.0%.
Conclusions
The
results from this study suggest that edentulous jaws, gender, and
implant orientation are not significant parameters when formulating an
All-on-Four™ treatment plan. The high CSRs for each variable analyzed
demonstrate the All-on-Four™ treatment as a viable alternative to more
extensive protocols for rehabilitating the edentulous maxilla or
mandible.
Comments