This is a staging instance. Full-text downloads are disabled.
 

Publication:
Clinical outcomes of single implant supported crowns versus 3‑unit implant‑supported fixed dental prostheses in Dubai Health Authority: a retrospective study

dc.contributor.authorAlhammadi, Sara
dc.contributor.authorMilosevic, Alexander
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-08T07:39:57Z
dc.date.available2022-02-08T07:39:57Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.description.abstractBackground: This study assessed retrospectively the clinical outcomes of single implant-supported crowns and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Methods: This case series compared biological and technical complications in single implant-supported crowns and implant-supported bridges in a time framed sample of all patients who received dental implants between 2009 and 2016 in Dubai Health Authority. Only 3-unit implant-supported prostheses (FDPs) with one intervening pontic and an implant each end were included for comparison to single crown supported implants. Cantilevered implants, implant supported dentures and cases involving bone grafts or sinus lifts were excluded. The primary outcome measure was marginal bone loss, measured on digital radiographs taken after prosthesis placement at baseline and one year after implant loading, whilst peri-implantitis and technical complications were secondary outcomes. Mixed regression models adjusted for clustering of implants within patients was used for patient and implant factor associations. Results: A total of 454 patients (152 males; 302 females) had 1673 implants. The mean age of males (53.7 years, SD 14.6) was significantly greater than females (49.3 years, SD 12.9, p < 0.001). Mean mesial bone loss on the FDPs was significantly greater at 1 year (1.14 mm, SD 0.63) compared with the mesial surface of single implant-supported crowns (0.30 mm, SD 0.43, p < 0.001). Mean distal bone loss was also significantly greater at 1 year on the distal surfaces of implants supporting bridgework (1.29 mm, SD 0.71) compared with distal surfaces on single implant-supported crowns (0.36 mm, SD 0.54, p < 0.001). Mean marginal bone loss mesially and distally around implants placed in the lower anterior sextant was significantly greater compared to all other sites (p < 0.001). Bone loss by gender, patient’s age and medical condition was not different between the 2 implant groups. Screw loosening was the main technical complication (11.5%) whilst peri-implantitis occurred rarely (0.5%). The 66 cement retained implants had significantly more complications compared to the 1607 screw retained implants (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Mean marginal bone loss around the supporting implants of FDPs (3-unit fixed bridgework) was greater than on single implant-supported crowns at one year after implant loading. Position in the mouth was associated with bone loss. Biological and technical complications occurred rarely.en_US
dc.identifier.other304-2021.34
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.mbru.ac.ae/handle/1/838
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectDental implantsen_US
dc.subjectBone lossen_US
dc.subjectTechnical complicationsen_US
dc.titleClinical outcomes of single implant supported crowns versus 3‑unit implant‑supported fixed dental prostheses in Dubai Health Authority: a retrospective studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files