1
|
Pascoal ALDB, Paiva KRG, Marinho LCN, Bezerra ADS, Calderon PDS. Impact of splinting implant-supported crowns on the performance of adjacent posterior implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2025; 133:402-410. [PMID: 38955598 DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.05.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2024] [Revised: 05/24/2024] [Accepted: 05/29/2024] [Indexed: 07/04/2024]
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM While rehabilitation with implant-supported crowns in the posterior region is widely practiced, guidance on clinical considerations when choosing between splinted or nonsplinted implant-supported crowns is limited. PURPOSE The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to assess whether adjacent implants with internal connections in the posterior region should be treated with splinted or nonsplinted crowns. MATERIAL AND METHODS The systematic review was registered on the prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) under the code, CRD42021248525. Two authors searched 4 electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science) independently for articles published up to December 2023. Additionally, a hand search was conducted in the nonpeer-reviewed literature and the reference lists of included articles. Only clinical studies comparing splinted and nonsplinted hexagonal or conical internal connection adjacent implants in the posterior region were considered. A single-arm meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan. Risk of bias and quality were assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Tool for Assessing Risk and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS Qualitative synthesis included 17 studies, and quantitative synthesis involved 13 studies. A total of 2085 implants (1244 splinted and 841 nonsplinted) were inserted in 1027 participants, with observation times ranging from 5 months to 16 years. Thirteen studies related the type of crown retention (cemented or screw-retained). Only 2 studies related annual bone loss results considering the type of crown retention, but whether they were splinted or nonsplinted crowns and significant differences were not specified. The meta-analysis revealed no statistical differences between splinted and nonsplinted implants for biological complications (P=.95, I2=0%). However, the nonsplinted implants exhibited significantly more mechanical complications than the splinted implants (P<.001, I2=1%, RR 0.37; 95% IC [0.26-0.54]). The studies included demonstrated a low risk of bias and were of good quality. CONCLUSIONS Splinting was not found to affect the incidence of biological complications in posterior adjacent implants. However, more mechanical complications occurred in nonsplinted crowns than splinted ones.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ana Luísa de Barros Pascoal
- Temporary Assistant Professor, Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, RN, Brazil
| | | | | | - Aliane da Silva Bezerra
- Postgraduate student, Department of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), Natal, RN, Brazil.
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Sivolella S, Giovannini S, Berberi J, Stocchero M, Brunello G. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) in the posterior atrophic jaws: a retrospective cohort study. Int J Implant Dent 2025; 11:4. [PMID: 39832106 PMCID: PMC11747052 DOI: 10.1186/s40729-025-00592-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/01/2024] [Accepted: 01/09/2025] [Indexed: 01/22/2025] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed at investigating implant survival rate and marginal bone loss (MBL) around extra-short implants. The impact of the loading protocol and of the use of an intermediate abutment was also evaluated, to explore possible differences in terms of the outcome measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS Patients with single or multiple mandibular or maxillary posterior edentulism rehabilitated using extra-short 5-6 mm long implants were included. Different prosthetic protocols were used. Clinical and radiological follow-up was 5 years. The outcomes measures were implant survival and MBL. RESULTS The analysis included 56 implants placed in 34 adults (12 males and 22 females; mean age 60 years, SD 11). Six implants failed during a median follow-up of 5 years and 4 of them were recorded in one patient at 2-year follow-up. The 5-year implant survival was 89% overall (87% in conventional and 94% in immediate loading). At univariate analysis, during follow-up immediate loading was associated with higher MBL (mean variation 0.21 mm, 95%CI 0.01 to 0.40; p = 0.02), while intermediate abutment was associated with lower MBL (mean variation -0.23 mm, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.09; p = 0.003). Multivariable analysis confirmed that immediate loading was associated with higher MBL. CONCLUSION Within its limitations, this study showed that extra-short implants under immediate loading conditions can be a reliable solution. The application of horizontal and vertical platform switching with the use of intermediate abutments seems to be able to contribute to the reduction of MBL.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stefano Sivolella
- Department of Neurosciences, School of Dentistry, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
| | - Stefano Giovannini
- Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Joana Berberi
- Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Michele Stocchero
- Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery and Oral Medicine, Faculty of Odontology, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden
| | - Giulia Brunello
- Department of Neurosciences, School of Dentistry, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
- Department of Oral Surgery, University Hospital of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany
- Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Avila-Ortiz G, Vegh D, Mukaddam K, Galindo-Moreno P, Pjetursson B, Payer M. Treatment alternatives for the rehabilitation of the posterior edentulous maxilla. Periodontol 2000 2023; 93:183-204. [PMID: 37486029 DOI: 10.1111/prd.12507] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2023] [Revised: 06/11/2023] [Accepted: 06/13/2023] [Indexed: 07/25/2023]
Abstract
Rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported fixed dental prostheses can represent a significant clinical challenge due to limited bone availability and surgical access, among other factors. This review addresses several treatment options to replace missing teeth in posterior maxillary segments, namely the placement of standard implants in conjunction with maxillary sinus floor augmentation, short implants, tilted implants, and distal cantilever extensions. Pertinent technical information and a concise summary of relevant evidence on the reported outcomes of these different therapeutic approaches are presented, along with a set of clinical guidelines to facilitate decision-making processes and optimize the outcomes of therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gustavo Avila-Ortiz
- Private Practice, Gonzalez + Solano Atelier Dental, Madrid, Spain
- Department of Oral Medicine, Infection, and Immunity, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Department of Periodontics, University of Iowa College of Dentistry, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
| | - Dániel Vegh
- Department of Oral Surgery and Orthodontics, University Clinic of Dental Medicine & Oral Health, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria
- Department of Prosthodontics, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary
| | - Khaled Mukaddam
- Department of Oral Surgery and Orthodontics, University Clinic of Dental Medicine & Oral Health, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria
- University Center of Dental Medicine, Department of Oral Surgery, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Pablo Galindo-Moreno
- Department of Oral Surgery and Implant Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
- Instituto de Investigación Biosanitaria (IBS), Granada, Spain
| | - Bjarni Pjetursson
- Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
| | - Michael Payer
- Department of Oral Surgery and Orthodontics, University Clinic of Dental Medicine & Oral Health, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Pjetursson BE, Sailer I, Merino-Higuera E, Spies BC, Burkhardt F, Karasan D. Systematic review evaluating the influence of the prosthetic material and prosthetic design on the clinical outcomes of implant-supported multi-unit fixed dental prosthesis in the posterior area. Clin Oral Implants Res 2023; 34 Suppl 26:86-103. [PMID: 37750526 DOI: 10.1111/clr.14103] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2023] [Revised: 04/24/2023] [Accepted: 04/30/2023] [Indexed: 09/27/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objectives of the study were to assess the survival, failure, and technical complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis (iFDPs) with pontic or splinted crown (iSp C) designs in the posterior area and compare the influence of prosthetic materials and prosthetic design on the outcomes. METHODS Electronic and manual searches were performed to identify randomized-, prospective-, and retrospective clinical trials with follow-up time of ≥12 months, evaluating the clinical outcomes of posterior iFDPs with pontic or iSp Cs. Survival and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson's regression models. RESULTS Thirty-two studies reporting on 42 study arms were included in the present systematic review. The meta-analysis of the included studies indicated estimated 3-year survival rates of 98.3% (95%CI: 95.6-99.3%) for porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) iFDPs, 97.5% (95%CI: 95.5-98.7%) for veneered zirconia (Zr) iFDPs with pontic, 98.9% (95%CI: 96.8-99.6%) for monolithic or micro-veneered zirconia iFDPs with pontic, and 97.0% (95%CI: 84.8-99.9%) for lithium disilicate iFDPs with pontics. The survival rates for different material combination showed no statistically significant differences. Veneered restorations, overall, showed significantly (p < .01) higher ceramic fracture and chipping rates compared with monolithic restorations. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in survival rates (98.3% [95%CI: 95.6-99.3%] vs. 99.1% [95%CI: 97.6-99.7%]) and overall complication rates between PFM iFDPs with pontic and PFM iSp Cs. CONCLUSIONS Based on the data identified by this systematic review, PFM, veneered Zr, and monolithic Zr iFDPs with pontic and iSp Cs showed similarly high short-term survival rates in the posterior area. Veneered restorations exhibit ceramic chipping more often than monolithic restorations, with the highest fracture rate reported for veneered Zr iFDPs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bjarni E Pjetursson
- Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, Faculty of Odontology, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
- Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Irena Sailer
- Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Elizabeth Merino-Higuera
- Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
- Department of Prosthodontics, University Center of Health Sciences, University of Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico
| | - Benedikt Christopher Spies
- Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Center for Dental Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Felix Burkhardt
- Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, Center for Dental Medicine, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Duygu Karasan
- Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Qin S, Gao Z. Comparative evaluation of short or standard implants with different prosthetic designs in the posterior mandibular region: a three-dimensional finite element analysis study. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Engin 2023; 26:1499-1509. [PMID: 36125258 DOI: 10.1080/10255842.2022.2124859] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2022] [Revised: 08/29/2022] [Accepted: 09/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the stress distribution of splinted or nonsplinted restorations supported by 2 short or 2 standard dental implants in the mandibular molar region using three-dimensional finite element analysis. Two standard implants (4.8 × 10mm) were placed in the mandibular molar area. Two short implants (4.8 × 6 mm) were located in the mandibular molar atrophied area. Implant-supported prostheses were simulated with splinted or nonsplinted crowns design. Vertical load of 200 N and oblique load of 100 N were applied on the central fossa and the buccal cusps. Evaluation of stress distribution in implants and peri-implant cortical bone using the finite element analysis software (Ansys, Version 2020, R2), a multipurpose computer design program. The maximum principal stress of cortical bone around the implants was higher in nonsplinted crowns when compared to splinted crowns. The stress concentration of cortical bone surrounding implants increased as the implant length decreased either splinted crowns or nonsplinted crowns. The short implants with nonsplinted crowns showed lower stresses when compared to standard implants with nonsplinted crowns. The results suggest that the nonsplinted prostheses supported by short dental implants might be considered in the molar area of the atrophic mandible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Siqi Qin
- Department of Stomatology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
| | - Zhi Gao
- Department of Stomatology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Shah AH, Patel P, Trivedi A, Shah A, Desai N, Talati M. A comparison of marginal bone loss, survival rate, and prosthetic complications in implant-supported splinted and nonsplinted restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2022; 22:111-121. [PMID: 36511022 PMCID: PMC9132503 DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_365_21] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Aim To compare marginal bone loss (MBL), implant survival rate and prosthetic complications of implant-supported splinted and non-splinted restorations (NSR). Settings and Design This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA). The PROSPERO registry, which keeps track of prospective systematic reviews, also received this paper (CRD42021229477). Material and Methods An electronic search was done in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Trials Register, Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar searches were carried out. The search was limited to articles published in English and covered the period from January 2010 to August 2020. Statistical Analysis Used To conduct the meta analysis, researchers employed methodologies such as continuous measurement and odds ratios. Results For both qualitative and quantitative analysis, 19 scientific studies were chosen. 3682 implants were placed in 2099 patients with a mean age of 59 years (splinted, 2529; non-splinted, 1153); the mean age was not provided in 5 trials. For splinted restorations, there were statistically significant differences in MBL, indicating the former has less MBL than for NSR. Splinted restorations had much greater survival rates than NSR, according to a qualitative study. Rest prosthesis complications with or without splinting were essentially the same. Conclusions Splinted implant restorations lost less bone than non-splinted implant restorations, according to this meta analysis. This was particularly true for posterior restorations. Lower implant failure was associated with splinted restorations. Restorations with and without splinting had the same level of prosthetic problems.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aesha Harsh Shah
- Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India,Address for correspondence: Dr. Aesha Harsh Shah, Department of Prosthodontics, Goenka Research Institute of Dental Science, Pethapur - Mahudi Road, Gandhinagar District, Near G.G.S, Piplaj, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 382 610, India. E-mail:
| | - Pankaj Patel
- Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
| | - Aumkar Trivedi
- Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
| | - Adit Shah
- Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
| | - Nikki Desai
- Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
| | - Mitangi Talati
- Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Li QL, Yao MF, Cao RY, Zhao K, Wang XD. Survival Rates of Splinted and Nonsplinted Prostheses Supported by Short Dental Implants (≤8.5 mm): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Prosthodont 2021; 31:9-21. [PMID: 34160869 DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13402] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/20/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To evaluate and compare the implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, and mechanical complications of prostheses supported by splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm). MATERIAL AND METHODS Electronic database (MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and EMBASE) and manual searches up to May 2021 were conducted to identify studies comparing splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm). The primary outcome was implant survival rate. Secondary outcomes were marginal bone loss and mechanical complications. The quality of included studies and risk-of-bias were assessed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects model was used to analyze the data. RESULTS Twelve studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria and featured 1506 short implants (596 nonsplinted and 910 splinted) with a follow-up time ranging from 1 to 16 years. Quantitative analysis found no statistically significant differences between splinted and nonsplinted short implants (≤8.5 mm) for survival rate (RR = 0.98; 95% CI 0.96, 1.01; p = 0.26)) and marginal bone loss (SMD = -0.08; 95% CI - 0.23, 0.07; p = 0.28). Veneer chipping, abutment screw breakage, screw loosening, and loss of retention were reported in the selected studies as common complications. However, no statistically significant difference was found between splinted and nonsplinted short implants (RR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.20, 1.54; p = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of the present meta-analysis, it might be concluded that splinted short implants (≤8.5 mm) do not present superior performance in survival rate, marginal bone maintenance and prevention of mechanical complications compared with single-unit prostheses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qiu-Lan Li
- Hospital of Stomatology, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Mian-Feng Yao
- Xiangya Hospital Central South University, Department of Stomatology, Changsha, Hunan, China
| | - Ruo-Yan Cao
- Hospital of Stomatology, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Ke Zhao
- Hospital of Stomatology, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| | - Xiao-Dong Wang
- Hospital of Stomatology, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.,Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Stomatology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
| |
Collapse
|