Prospective 10‐Year Cohort Study Based on a Randomized, Controlled Trial (RCT) on Implant‐Supported Full‐Arch Maxillary Prostheses. Part II: Prosthetic Outcomes and Maintenance

Abstract

Fracture or wear of the reconstruction materials were considered predictable risks when using resin-based suprastructure materials. Status of opposing dentition and length of cantilevers did not confer additional risk. The use of a lingual gold onlay indicated prevention of resin-related complications. Future research should focus on the suprastructure materials to predict better overall treatment results of implant-supported full-arch bridges in the edentulous maxilla.

Clinical practice guidelines for recall and maintenance of patients with tooth-borne and implant-borne dental restorations

“…The CPGs are presented in Table 3 for tooth-borne restorations [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] and Table 4 for implant-borne restorations. [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] For tooth-borne restorations, the professional maintenance and at-home maintenance CPGs were subdivided for removable and fixed restorations. For implant-borne restorations, the professional maintenance CPGs were sub-divided for removable and fixed restorations and further divided into biological maintenance and mechanical maintenance for each type of restoration.…”

Implant-Supported Immediately Loaded Full-Arch Rehabilitations

“…26 Differences in terms of complications and failures of final full-arch implant rehabilitations made in resin versus those made in zirconia were not detected during the observation period.…”

“…26,57 In particular, the most common prosthesis-related technical complication reported with implantsupported complete dental prostheses was chipping or fracture of the veneering material (33.3% at 5 years) as a result of fatigue and stress. In a prospective study regarding a clinical test over a period of 36 months, Duncan et al 54 reported that 68% of patients provided with fixed detachable prostheses had complications.…”

“…26 Fractures occurred more frequently in the anterior than posterior area and after 1 year of use, and they could be explained with the excessive wear of the resin teeth that are unable to maintain the occlusal information during time. To avoid this problem, different options were proposed, 26 but clinical confirmations and statistical data are still lacking.…”

“…19 Various studies and reviews confirmed the clinical success of this approach that it seems not related to a specific implant surface, design, system, or clinical procedure preferences. 1,2,4,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] The aim of this concept is to enhance correct function, esthetics and long-term successful rate, and to meet patient expectations also in terms of minimum optimal number of implants for fixed reconstructions 29 and consequently financial savings. 3 In a recent review, Kwon et al 2 reported a wide set of data about short (5-10 years) and long (more than 10 years) follow-up of prostheses supported by implant-retained metal frameworks.…”