Email Alert | RSS

Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences) ›› 2021, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (5): 970-976. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2021.05.027

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Clinical observation of the curative effect after 5-year follow-up of single tooth implant-supported restorations in the posterior region

LIANG Feng,WU Min-jie(),ZOU Li-dong   

  1. Second Clinical Division, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology & Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Beijing 100101, China
  • Received:2019-09-18 Online:2021-10-18 Published:2021-10-11
  • Contact: Min-jie WU E-mail:dentwu@sohu.com

RICH HTML

   

PDF (PC)

Abstract:

Objective: To analyze the clinical curative effect after 5-year follow-up of single tooth implant-supported restorations in the posterior region. Methods: In the study, patients with single tooth implant-supported restorations in the posterior region after loading 5-year in the Second Clinical Division of Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology from October 2005 to May 2010 was enrolled. The implant survival rate, prosthetic conditions (including the structural integrity or loosening of the prosthesis, the retention of the materials used to fill access holes of screw-retained implant crowns, loosening or fractures of the implant abutment or screw) and marginal bone lever level around implants were determined by clinical and radiographic examination. Results: The study was composed of 215 patients, the mean age was 48.6 years (range: 27 to 71), and 321 soft tissue implants were inserted. There were 9 implants loose and lost during the visit, the cumulative success rate was 97.2%. In the 312 remaining implants, 120 implants were placed in the upper jaws (38.5%) and 192 in the lower jaws (61.5%). Three different diameters as 3.3 mm (5 implants), 4.1 mm (115 implants) and 4.8 mm (192 implants) and three different lengths as 8 mm (21 implants), 10 mm (206 implants) and 12 mm (85 implants) were used, respectively. 277 (88.8%) cement-retained and 35 (11.2%) screw-retained implant-supported single crowns were made. The marginal bone loss (MBL) around dental implants after loading 5 years in the mesial and distal sides were (0.73±0.25) mm and (0.78±0.26) mm, respectively. There was no significant difference among MBL and bone quality, implant type, angle of abutment, prosthodontic type, crown-to-implant ratio, gender, and age of the patients (P>0.05). The major mechanical complications after restoration involved loosening (8.6%) and fracture (2.9%) of the crown retainer screw, loss of resin covering the screw (11.4%), and the most frequent mechanical complications were loss of crown retention (14.1%) and fracture of porcelain (13.8%). The incidence of loss of crown retention was correlated with insufficient clinical crown height or using angle abutment (P<0.05). Conclusion: After loading 5 years, the bone level around the soft-tissue-implant placed in posterior region was stable. To minimize the frequency of mechanical complications after restoration, protocols must be established from diagnosis to the completion of treatment and follow up of implant-supported prostheses, especially in terms of adequate technical steps and careful radiographic evaluation of the components.

Key words: Dental implant, Dental prosthesis, Implant-supported, Bone resorption

CLC Number: 

  • R783.6

Figure 1

The bone height around the implant and the height of the prosthesis I, length of implant; C, height of prosthesis; H, the vertical height of the proximal bone plane from the cervical margin plane of the implant."

Table 1

Analysis of 5-year survival of 332 implants placed in the posterior region"

Follow-up period/years Lost follow-up implants Failed implants Premier implants Final implants Survival rate/% Cumulative survival rate/%
0- 0 0 332 332.0 100.0 100.0
1- 2 1 332 329.5 99.7 99.7
2- 3 2 329 325.0 99.4 99.1
3- 3 3 324 319.5 99.1 98.1
4- 3 3 318* 313.5 99.0 97.2

Table 2

Diameter and length of the implants"

Items Diameter Total
3.3 mm 4.1 mm 4.8 mm
Length
8 mm 0 7 14 21
10 mm 4 63 139 206
12 mm 1 45 39 85
Total 5 115 192 312

Table 3

Tooth position of the implants"

Items Tooth position Total
First premolar Second premolar First molar Second molar
Upper jaw 16 28 66 10 120
Lower jaw 7 24 130 31 192
Total 23 52 196 41 312

Table 4

The relations between various factors and the bone losses in the mesial and distal side of the implants"

Items Implants, n Bone losses in the mesial side/mm, x ?±s Bone losses in the distal side/mm, x ?±s
Jaw
Upper jaw 120 0.71±0.26 0.80±0.27
Lower jaw 192 0.74±0.25 0.77±0.26
P 0.23 0.45
Diameter of implants
3.3 mm 5 0.57±0.18 0.69±0.09
4.1 mm 115 0.69±0.23 0.74±0.25
4.8 mm 192 0.76±0.26 0.81±0.27
P 0.06 0.08
Length
8 mm 21 0.72±0.24 0.86±0.28
10 mm 206 0.75±0.25 0.79±0.26
12 mm 85 0.70±0.24 0.75±0.26
P 0.32 0.18
Diameter of the neck
3.5 mm 3 0.63±0.18 0.61±0.10
4.8 mm 181 0.72±0.25 0.79±0.26
6.5 mm 128 0.75±0.25 0.78±0.27
P 0.50 0.51
Type of abutment
Straight 208 0.72±0.25 0.80±0.26
Angle 69 0.74±0.24 0.76±0.27
P 0.91 0.35
Retention modes
Adhesive retainer 277 0.73±0.24 0.79±0.26
Screw retainer 35 0.76±0.29 0.72±0.29
P 0.16 0.42
Bone quality
Type Ⅱ 80 0.72±0.27 0.76±0.25
Type Ⅱ-Ⅲ 52 0.75±0.25 0.81±0.28
Type Ⅲ 134 0.73±0.25 0.79±0.28
Type Ⅲ-Ⅳ 22 0.63±0.22 0.74±0.25
Type Ⅳ 24 0.82±0.22 0.82±0.20
P 0.13 0.73
Crown-to-implant ratio
<1 ∶1 181 0.73±0.25 0.76±0.28
1 ∶1-1.5 ∶1 111 0.73±0.26 0.81±0.24
>1.5 ∶1 20 0.79±0.22 0.81±0.23
P 0.67 0.22
Gender
Male 152 0.74±0.81 0.78±0.43
Female 160 0.72±0.24 0.74±0.37
P 0.26 0.39
Age/years
<45 102 0.73±0.52 0.77±0.76
45-59 134 0.74±0.38 0.79±0.53
60-74 76 0.75±0.87 0.80±0.68
P 0.59 0.64

Table 5

The relations between various factors and porcelain fracture"

Items Porcelain fracture Intact crown Total Rate of porcelain fracture P
Jaw 0.70
Upper jaw 17 103 120 14.2%
Lower jaw 26 166 192 13.5%
Retention modes 0.26
Adhesive retainer 36 241 277 13.0%
Screw retainer 7 28 35 20.0%
Diameter of implants 0.75
3.3 mm 0 5 5 0
4.1 mm 17 98 115 14.8%
4.8 mm 26 166 192 13.5%
Diameter of the neck 0.54
3.5 mm 0 3 3 0
4.8 mm 27 154 181 14.9%
6.5 mm 16 112 128 12.5%
Crown height 0.94
< 5 mm 12 62 74 16.2%
5-10 mm 17 132 149 11.4%
> 10 mm 14 75 89 15.7%
Gender 0.09
Male 26 126 152 17.1%
Female 17 143 160 10.1%
Age/years 0.26
< 45 15 87 102 14.7%
45-59 22 112 134 16.4%
60-74 6 70 76 7.9%

Table 6

The relations between various factors and prosthesis detach"

Items Prosthesis detach Stable prosthesis Total Rate of prosthesis detach P
Jaw 0.83
Upper jaw 16 87 103 15.5%
Lower jaw 23 151 174 13.2%
Type of abutment 0.01
Straight 22 186 208 10.6%
Angle 17 52 69 24.6%
Diameter of implants 0.51
3.3 mm 0 5 5 0
4.1 mm 15 87 102 14.7%
4.8 mm 24 146 170 14.1%
Diameter of the neck 0.59
3.5 mm 0 3 3 0
4.8 mm 23 162 181 14.2%
6.5 mm 16 112 128 14.3%
Crown height <0.001
< 5 mm 20 50 70 28.6%
5-10 mm 15 105 120 12.5%
> 10 mm 4 83 87 4.6%
Gender 0.33
Male 21 114 135 15.6%
Female 18 124 142 12.7%
Age/years 0.69
< 45 14 78 92 15.2%
45-59 18 102 120 15.0%
60-74 7 58 65 10.8%
[1] Jung RE, Pjetrusson BE, Glauser R, et al. A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2008, 19(2):119-130.
doi: 10.1111/clr.2008.19.issue-2
[2] Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2012, 23(Suppl 6):22-38.
[3] Zembic A, Kim S, Zwahlen M, et al. Systematic review of the survival rate and incidence of biologic, technical, and esthetic complications of single implant abutments supporting fixed prostheses [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2014, 29(Suppl):99-116.
[4] Hjalmarsson L, Gheisarifar M, Jemt T. A systematic review of survival of single implants as presented in longitudinal studies with a follow-up of at least 10 years [J]. I Eur J Oral Implantol, 2016, 9(Suppl 1):S155-162.
[5] Garlini G, Chierichetti V, D’Amato S, et al. A long term follow-up of single-tooth Xive implant: 15 year results [J]. Dent Oral Craniofac Res, 2016, 3(1):1-4.
[6] Arunyanak SP, Pollini A, Ntounis A, et al. Clinician assessments and patient perspectives of single-tooth implant restorations in the esthetic zone of the maxilla: A systematic review [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2017, 118(1):10-17.
doi: S0022-3913(16)30691-6 pmid: 28385430
[7] Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Larsson C. Retrospective clinical evaluation of implant-supported single crowns: Mean follow-up of 15 years [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2019, 30(7):691-701
doi: 10.1111/clr.2019.30.issue-7
[8] 林野, 李健慧, 邱立新, 等. 口腔种植修复临床效果十年回顾研究 [J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2006, 41(3):131-135.
[9] 朱艳香, 程然, 林梓桐, 等. 上颌后牙区种植修复后6~9年临床疗效观察 [J]. 东南大学学报(医学版), 2017, 36(5):841-846.
[10] 张燕婷, 李悦, 何晶, 等. 上颌后牙区不同术式种植修复10年累计存留率及患者相关因素对其成功率的影响分析 [J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2017, 10(1):31-35.
[11] Wheeler SL, Holmes RE, Calhoun CJ. Six-year clinical and histologic study of sinus-lift grafts [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 1996, 11(1):26-34.
[12] Renouard F, Nisand D. Impact of implant length and diameter on survival rates [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2006, 17(Suppl 2):35-51.
doi: 10.1111/clr.2006.17.issue-s2
[13] Zimmermann J, Sommer M, Grize L, et al. Marginal bone loss 1 year after implantation: a systematic review for fixed and removable restorations [J]. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent, 2019, 11:195-218.
doi: 10.2147/CCIDE
[14] Pellicer-Chover H, Díaz-Sanchez M, Soto-Penaloza D, et al. Impact of crestal and subcrestal implant placement upon changes in marginal peri-implant bone level: A systematic review [J]. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, 2019, 24(5):673-683.
[15] Galindo-Moreno P, León-Cano A, Ortega-Oller I, et al. Marginal bone loss as success criterion in implant dentistry: beyond 2 mm [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2015, 26(4):28-34.
[1] Jiayu LIU, Ning ZHU, Yuchen CHANG, Xianming GAO, Yu ZHANG. Accuracy of dynamic navigation-assisted trephine method for bone harvesting [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2026, 58(2): 365-371.
[2] Yongtao YANG, Yuwen TIAN, Shenyao SHAN, Wenbo LI, Xiangyi SHANG, Yizhen WANG, Shuwei GUO, Zixiang GAO, Aonan WEN, Yijiao ZHAO, Yong WANG. A multi-view stereo vision methodology for digital soft-tissue impressions in fixed implant rehabilitation of edentulous patients [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2026, 58(1): 126-132.
[3] Yulan WANG, Hao ZENG, Yufeng ZHANG. Current situation and exploration of clinical transformation of plasmatrix in oral implantology [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2025, 57(5): 836-840.
[4] Ziyang YU, Houzuo GUO, Xi JIANG, Weihua HAN, Ye LIN. Imaging study of osteogenesis in maxillary sinus segment of zygomatic implants [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2025, 57(5): 967-974.
[5] Fangru LIN, Zhihui TANG. Correlation analysis of peri-implant health after single-tooth dental implant [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2025, 57(2): 347-353.
[6] Yutong SHI, Yiping WEI, Wenjie HU, Tao XU, Haoyun ZHANG. Evaluation of micro crestal flap-alveolar ridge preservation following extraction of mandibular molars with severe periodontitis [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2025, 57(1): 33-41.
[7] Junnan NIE, Jiayun DONG, Ruifang LU. Analysis of soft tissue healing after keratinized tissue augmentation in reconstructed jaws [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2025, 57(1): 57-64.
[8] Juan WANG, Lixin QIU, Huajie YU. Influence of emergence profile designs on the peri-implant tissue in the mandibular molar: A randomized controlled trial [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2025, 57(1): 65-72.
[9] Yifan KANG, Yanjun GE, Xiaoming LV, Shang XIE, Xiaofeng SHAN, Zhigang CAI. One-stage mandibular reconstruction combining iliac flap with immediate implant-based denture [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2025, 57(1): 78-84.
[10] Hong LI, Feifei MA, Jinlong WENG, Yang DU, Binzhang WU, Feng SUN. Accuracy of dynamic navigation system for immediate dental implant placement [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2025, 57(1): 85-90.
[11] Han ZHANG,Yixuan QIN,Diyuan WEI,Jie HAN. A preliminary study on compliance of supportive treatment of patients with periodontitis after implant restoration therapy [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(1): 39-44.
[12] Congwei WANG,Min GAO,Yao YU,Wenbo ZHANG,Xin PENG. Clinical analysis of denture rehabilitation after mandibular fibula free-flap reconstruction [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(1): 66-73.
[13] Sui LI,Wenjie MA,Shimin WANG,Qian DING,Yao SUN,Lei ZHANG. Trueness of different digital design methods for incisal guidance of maxillary anterior implant-supported single crowns [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(1): 81-87.
[14] Xiaoqiang LIU,Yin ZHOU. Risk factors of perioperative hypertension in dental implant surgeries with bone augmentation [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2024, 56(1): 93-98.
[15] Qian DING,Wen-jin LI,Feng-bo SUN,Jing-hua GU,Yuan-hua LIN,Lei ZHANG. Effects of surface treatment on the phase and fracture strength of yttria- and magnesia-stabilized zirconia implants [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2023, 55(4): 721-728.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!
Copyright © Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), All Rights Reserved.
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd