Author:
Saeed Mostafa,El-Far Mahmoud Mokhtar,Elkhadem Amr Hosny
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This trial aims to study the difference between prostheses screwmented on full-arch implants using the intraoral luting cement technique on titanium bases versus transmucosal abutments in terms of prosthetic complications.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients were recruited in this trial, there were mainly two groups. A screw-retained full-arch implant-supported prosthesis was constructed over four dental implants on upper or lower jaws. For the control group, multiunit abutments were used to construct a screw-retained prosthesis. As for the experimental group, Ti-base abutments were used over the dental implants to construct a screw-retained prosthesis. In both groups, the prosthetic framework was made using polyether ether ketone (PEEK) material and luted intraorally over the titanium sleeve using resin cement. A binary outcome of prosthetic complication was taken in 6 and 12 months. Abutment screw loosening, prosthetic screw loosening, prosthetic screw fracture, abutment screw fracture, veneer fracture, framework fracture, Ti-base decementation, and overall prosthetic loosening were the prosthetic complications included in the trial.
RESULTS: At the end of the study, a total of 19 patients adhered to the trial. Throughout the exposure process of implants, two implants failed in one patient from the Ti-base group. This patient was excluded from the study on his request. There was no statistically significant difference present between Ti-base and multiunit abutment groups in terms of abutment and prosthetic screw loosening, abutment and prosthetic screw fracture, veneer and framework fracture, Ti-base decementation, and overall prosthesis loosening for 6 and 12 months. Data were explored for normality using Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests, data showed non-parametric (not-normal) distribution. Qualitative data were presented as frequencies and percentages. Wilcoxon and Mann–Whitney tests were used to compare the qualitative outcomes in this study.
CONCLUSION: Both multiunit and Ti-base are considered a viable line of treatment to construct a screw-retained full arch implant-supported prosthesis.
Publisher
Scientific Foundation SPIROSKI
Reference27 articles.
1. Hamed MT, Mously HA, Alamoudi SK, Hashem AB, Naguib GH. A systematic review of screw versus cement-retained fixed implant supported reconstructions. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2020;12:9-16. http://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S231070 PMid:32021476
2. Arce C, Lawson MS, Liu P, Chee MS, Lin P, Givan DA. Titanium bases following different surface treatments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(3):530-5. http://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5915 PMid:29355855
3. Werbelow L, Weiss M, Schramm A. Long-term follow-up of full-arch immediate implant-supported restorations in edentulous jaws: A clinical study. Int J Implant Dent. 2020;6(1):34. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-020-00232-8 PMid:32728859
4. Vercruyssen M. The use of CT scan based planning for oral rehabilitation by means of implants and its transfer to the surgical field : A critical review on accuracy. J Oral Rehabil. 2008;35(6):454-74. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2007.01816.x PMid:18429973
5. Agliardi E, Clericò M, Ciancio P, Massironi D. Immediate loading of full-arch fixed protheses supported by axial and tilted implants for the treatment of edentulous atrophic mandibles. Quintessence Int (Berl). 2010;41(4):285-93. PMid:20305862