Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
http://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/1807-2577.09418
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Retrospective evaluation of the survival rate of single tooth prostheses supported in external hexagonal implants: mean follow-up of 9 years

Avaliação retrospectiva do índice de sobrevivência de próteses unitárias suportadas em implantes de hexágono externo: média de acompanhamento de 9 anos

Carolina Accorsi CARTELLI; Ivete Aparecida de Mattias SARTORI; Geninho THOMÉ; Ana Cláudia Moreira MELO

Downloads: 0
Views: 64

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: The use of osseointegrated dental implants for the rehabilitation of patients has revolutionized dentistry.

Objective: To retrospectively evaluate the survival rate and the frequency of complications with external hexagon platform supporting single crowns.

Material and method: Dental forms of 110 patients who received 143 implants at the Ilapeo College (2004-2015) were used. The variables were: age, gender, systemic involvement at the time of surgery, region, implant design, type of surface, fixation system, pillar type and prosthesis material. The outcome variables were the incidence of complications in the implant or prosthesis and time in use. The mean follow-up period was 9 years.

Result: 32.8% had some systemic disease. Ninety-six implants (67.1%) were installed in the maxilla and 47 (32.9%) in the mandible, 87 (60.8%) were in the posterior region and 56 (39.2%) in the anterior region, while 40 (28%) were placed in regions that had received bone reconstruction. The majority (97.2%) of the implants presented surface treatment, 42% had a cylindrical design and 58% were tapered. The majority of the prosthetic components (89.6%) used were UCLAs and most of the prostheses were fused-to-metal (79.7%). The rate of prosthetic complications was 19.58% and three implants had been lost (97.9% survival rate). There was no statistical difference between the variables analyzed for both the occurrence of prosthetic complications and for the loss of the implant.

Conclusion: Implants with external hexagon connection were an effective and predictable option to support crowns and had high survival rates.

Keywords

External hexagon, dental implants, survival rates, single tooth prostheses

Resumo

Resumo: Introdução: O uso de implantes dentários osseointegrados para a reabilitação de pacientes revolucionou a Odontologia.

Objetivo: Avaliar retrospectivamente o índice de sobrevivência e a frequência de complicações com plataformas de hexágono externo suportando coroas unitárias.

Material e método: Foram utilizados prontuários de 110 pacientes que receberam 143 implantes na Faculdade Ilapeo (2004-2015). As variáveis foram: idade, sexo, envolvimento sistêmico no momento da cirurgia, região, desenho do implante, tipo de superfície, sistema de fixação, tipo de pilar e material da prótese. As variáveis de desfecho foram a incidência de complicações nos implantes e/ou próteses e o tempo em função. O tempo médio de acompanhamento foi de 9 anos.

Resultado: 32,8% apresentavam alguma alteração sistêmica. Noventa e seis implantes (67,1%) foram instalados na maxila e 47 (32,9%) na mandíbula, 87 (60,8%) estavam em região posterior e 56 (39,2%) em região anterior, enquanto 40 (28%) necessitaram reconstrução óssea prévia. A maioria dos implantes (97,2%) apresentava tratamento de superfície, 42% eram cilíndricos e 58% cônicos. A maioria dos componentes protéticos (89,6%) eram UCLAs e a maioria das próteses fundidas em metal (79,7%). O índice de complicações protéticas foi de 19,58% e 3 implantes foram perdidos (97,9% de índice de sobrevivência). Não houve diferença estatística em relação às variáveis estudadas e a ocorrência de complicações protéticas e perda de implantes.

Conclusão: Implantes com plataforma de hexágono externo são uma opção efetiva e previsível de reabilitação unitária e apresenta elevado índice de sobrevivência.
 

Palavras-chave

Hexágono externo, implantes dentários, índice de sobrevivência, prótese unitária

References

Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. 15 year study of osseointegrated implants in treatment of edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981 Dec;10(6):387-416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4. PMid:6809663.

Adell R. Clinical results of osseointegrated implants supporting fixed prostheses in edentulous jaws. J Prosthet Dent. 1983 Aug;50(2):251-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(83)90026-4. PMid:6352911.

Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1986;1(1):11-25. PMid:3527955.

Cordioli G, Castagna S, Consolati E. Single-tooth implant rehabilitation: a retrospective study of 67 implants. Int J Prosthodont. 1994 Nov-Dec;7(6):525-31. PMid:7748446.

Duminil G, Muller-Bolla M, Brun JP, Leclercq P, Bernard JP, Dohan Ehrenfest DM. Success rate of the EVL evolution implants (SERF): a five-year longitudinal multicenter study. J Oral Implantol. 2008;34(5):282-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1563/1548-1336(2008)34[283:SROTEE]2.0.CO;2. PMid:19170295.

Camargos GV, Prado CJ, Neves FD, Sartori IA. Clinical outcomes of single dental implants with external connections: results after 2 to 13 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Jul-Aug;27(4):935-44. PMid:22848897.

Ponzoni D, Gadotti RJ, Sartori IA, Liotto EM Jr. Digital radiographic evaluation of the level of alveolar bone crest in external hexagon implants submitted to 2 types of implant abutments under immediate loading. J Craniofac Surg. 2011 Nov;22(6):2312-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e318232a763. PMid:22134266.

Anitua E, Murias-Freijo A, Flores J, Alkhraisat MH. Replacement of missing posterior tooth with off-center placed single implant: long-term follow-up outcomes. J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Jul;114(1):27-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.12.019. PMid:25862271.

Krebs M, Schmenger K, Neumann K, Weigl P, Moser W, Nentwig GH. Long- term evaluation of ANKYLOS® dental implants, part I: 20-year life table analysis of a longitudinal study of more than 12,500 implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Jan;17(Suppl 1):e275-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cid.12154. PMid:24103113.

Lewis SG, Llamas D, Avera S. The UCLA abutment: a four year review. J Prosthet Dent. 1992 Apr;67(4):509-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90082-L. PMid:1507135.

Sartori IA, Pereira JR. Prótese sobre implante. São Paulo: Artes Médicas; 2012.

Jung RE, Pjetursson BE, Glauser R, Zembic A, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Feb;19(2):119-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01453.x. PMid:18067597.

Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK. Three-year post-loading results of a randomised, controlled, split-mouth trial comparing implants with different prosthetic interfaces and design in partially posterior edentulous mandibles. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014;7(1):47-61. PMid:24892113.

Romeo E, Chiapasco M, Ghisolfi M, Vogel G. Long-term clinical effectiveness of oral implants in the treatment of partial edentulism: seven-year life table analysis of a prospective study with ITI dental implants system used for single-tooth restorations. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002 Apr;13(2):133-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130203.x. PMid:11952733.

Maló P, Friberg B, Polizzi G, Gualini F, Vighagen T, Rangert B. Immediate and early function of Brånemark System® implants placed in the esthetic zone: a 1-year prospective clinical multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5(Suppl 1):37-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00014.x. PMid:12691649.

Eckert SE, Meraw SJ, Cal E, Ow RK. Analysis of incidence and associated factors with fractured implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000 Sep-Oct;15(5):662-7. PMid:11055133.
 

5bf29c970e8825e452563e54 rou Articles
Links & Downloads

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections