Immediate occlusal loading and tilted implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla: 1‐year interim results of a multicenter prospective study

Abstract

Objectives: The aims of this prospective study were to assess the treatment outcome of immediately loaded full-arch fixed bridges anchored to both tilted and axially placed implants for the rehabilitation of fully edentulous maxillae and to compare the outcome of axial vs. tilted implants.Material and methods: Forty-one patients with edentulous maxillae were included in the study. Each patient received a full-arch fixed bridge supported by four axial implants and two distal tilted implants. Loading was applied within 48 h from surgery. Patients were scheduled for follow-up at 6 months, 1 year and annually up to 5 years. Radiographic evaluation of marginal bone-level change was performed at 1 year.Results: One patient died 4 months after surgery. Thirty patients were followed for a minimum of 1 year (range 3-42 months, mean 22.1 months). Three failures were recorded at 1-year follow-up (two axial implants and one tilted). Two more implants (one tilted and one axially placed) were lost within 18 months of loading. The 1-year implant survival rate was 98.8% for both axial and tilted implants. Prosthesis success rate was 100% at 1 year.Marginal bone loss around axial and tilted implants at 12-month evaluation was similar, being, respectively, 0.9 AE 0.4 (standard deviation) mm and 0.8 AE 0.5 mm.Conclusions: The present preliminary data suggest that immediate loading associated with tilted implants could be considered to be a viable treatment modality for the atrophic maxilla and that there does not seem to be a different clinical outcome between tilted and axial implants.

Immediate Postextractive Dental Implant Placement with Immediate Loading on Four Implants for Mandibular‐Full‐Arch Rehabilitation: A Retrospective Analysis

“…The data from the questionnaire showed high satisfaction with the treatment, in particular with eating comfort, aesthetics and phonetics. Our study reported an implant and prostheses survival rate of 100%, which is consistent with previous retrospective 13,20 and prospective single cohort studies 37,38,39,40,41 . Thus, the survival rate of implants placed in fresh extraction sites equal to that of implants placed into healed edentulous sites.…”

A 5-Year Comparison of Marginal Bone Level following Immediate Loading of Single-ToothImplants Placed in Healed Alveolar Ridgesand Extraction Sockets in the Maxilla

“…The reason for the apparent lower rate of MBL may be due to the association of implant insertion with final abutment connection without T2 T2 T3 T3 T4 T4 T5 T5 Mean ± SD P Mean ± SD P Mean ± SD P Mean ± SD P IMME temp 0.148 ± 0. any later manipulation. These findings are in accordance with previous studies on the effect of abutment dis/reconnections on peri-implant bone resorption (Carlson et al, 2004;Canullo and Rasperini, 2007;Testori et al, 2008;Bergkvist et al, 2009;Canullo et al, 2010). Berglundh et al (2005) analyzed marginal bone alterations following implant placement, abutment connection, and functional loading; they reported that the largest amount of bone loss occurred following implant placement and abutment connection and that almost no bone level alterations occurred after.…”

“…Interestingly, some bone loss was regained after a period of 5 years. MBL values reported in this study were lower compared to other studies with similar observation periods (Boronat et al, 2008;Collaert and De Bruyn, 2008;Testori et al, 2008;Tözüm et al, 2008;Bergkvist et al, 2009;Piao et al, 2009;Song et al, 2009). Bone loss for healed sites (group I) in our study was about 0.266 ± 0.176 mm while with another study it showed an increase of up to 0.78 mm (Ericsson et al, 2000), which can be explained by the formation of the biological width (Hermann et al, 2001).…”

Implantes cigomáticos en pacientes con edentulismo maxilar y reabsorción ósea severa

“…Durante el proceso de óseo-integración del implante, se tienen varias opciones como colocar un provisional o hacer carga inmediata sin necesidad de esperar 6 meses a que se realice la óseo-integración de los implantes convencionales y proceder a la utilización de los implantes de manera inmediata tras su colocación. Esta carga inmediata hace que el paciente edéntulo y portador de prótesis removible pase a disfrutar de una prótesis fija implantosoportada en un corto periodo de tiempo, a diferencia de la técnica de injerto óseo en la que los implantes no son cargados antes de 6-10 meses en el mejor de los casos, siendo esta la mayor ventaja de esta técnica lo cual devuelve al paciente tanto la estética como la función en un corto periodo de tiempo (39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45).…”