Implant survival rate and marginal bone loss with the all-on-4 immediate-loading strategy: A clinical retrospective study with 1 to 4 years of follow-up
Published:February 12, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.12.020
Abstract
Statement of problem
Assessing peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) and its risk factors with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) may clarify the risk factors for the all-on-4 (5 or 6) strategy and further improve its survival rate.
Purpose
The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate the implant survival rate, MBL, and associated risk factors of all-on-4 (5 or 6) prostheses after 1 to 4 years of follow-up with CBCT.
Material and methods
A total of 56 participants rehabilitated with 325 implants by using the all-on-4 (5 or 6) concept between October 2015 and December 2019 were included. Outcome measures were cumulative implant survival (life-table analysis) and MBL. Four CBCT scans, a scan immediately after surgery (T0), a scan 1 year after surgery (T1), a scan 2 years after surgery (T2), and a scan 3 to 4 years after treatment (T3), were obtained to evaluate the MBL. The Pearson correlation coefficient analysis and linear mixed models were performed to assess the potential risk factors for MBL (α=.05).
Results
The implant survival rate was 99.38%, and the prosthesis survival rate was 100%. The reductions in the vertical buccal bone height (△VBBH) were 0.74 ±0.10 mm (T0-T1), 0.37 ±0.12 mm (T1-T2), and 0.15 ±0.14 mm (T2-T3). Except for T2-T3, the △VBBH showed a significant difference at T0-T1 and T1-T2 (P≤.05). The alterations in vertical mesial bone height (VMBH), vertical distal bone height (VDBH), and vertical lingual bone height (VLBH) were similar to the trend observed in VBBH. The △VBBH (T0-T3) was negatively correlated with the horizontal buccal bone thickness (HBBT) (T0) (r=−.394, P<.001). Linear mixed models revealed that factors such as smoking (P=.001), mandible implant site (P<.001), immediate implant (P=.026), tilted implant (P<.001), female sex (P=.003), systemic disease (P=.025), and bruxism (P=.022) negatively affected MBL. The cantilever length (CL) also had a negative effect on MBL around the implants at the distal extension (P<.001).
Conclusions
The high implant and prosthesis survival rates and low MBL confirmed the predictability of the all-on-4 (5 or 6) concept. Smoking, mandible implant site, systemic disease, bruxism, female sex, immediate implant, tilted implant, and CL were identified as potential risk factors for MBL.
Comments