J Korean Acad Prosthodont.  2019 Oct;57(4):342-349. 10.4047/jkap.2019.57.4.342.

Retrospective study on survival, success rate and complication of implant-supported fixed prosthesis according to the materials in the posterior area

• Chae HS
• Wang YK
• Lee JJ
• Song KY
• Seo JM

• KMID: 2461140
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2019.57.4.342

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to retrospectively investigate the survival and success rate of implant-supported fixed prosthesis according to the materials in the posterior area. Other purposes were to observe the complications and evaluate the factors affecting failure.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients who had been restored implant prosthesis in the posterior area by the same prosthodontist in the department of prosthodontics, dental hospital, Chonbuk National University, in the period from January 2011 to June 2018 were selected for the study. The patient's sex, age, material, location, type of prosthesis and complications were examined using medical records. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze the survival and success rate. The Log-rank test was conducted to compare the differences between the groups. Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the association between potential risk factors and success rate.
RESULTS
A total of 364 implants were observed in 245 patients, with an average follow-up of 17.1 months. A total of 5 implant prostheses failed and were removed, and the 3 and 5 year cumulative survival rate of all implant prostheses were 97.5 and 91.0, respectively. The 3 and 5 year cumulative success rate of all implant prostheses were 61.1% and 32.9%, respectively. Material, sex, age, location and type of prosthesis did not affect success rate (P>.05). Complications occurred in the order of proximal contact loss (53 cases), retention loss (17 cases), peri-implant mucositis (12 cases), infraocclusion (4 cases) and so on.
CONCLUSION
Considering a high cumulative survival rate of implant-supported fixed prostheses, regardless of the materials, implant restored in posterior area can be considered as a reliable treatment to tooth replacement. However, regular inspections and, if necessary, repairs and adjustments are very important because of the frequent occurrence of complications

Keyword

Implant-supported fixed prosthesis; Survival rate; Success rate; Kaplan-Meier analysis; Complication

MeSH Terms

Dentists
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Jeollabuk-do
Kaplan-Meier Estimate
Medical Records
Methods
Mucositis
Proportional Hazards Models
Prostheses and Implants*
Prosthodontics
Retrospective Studies*
Risk Factors
Survival Rate
Tooth

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Cumulative survival rate of total implant supported prostheses.

• 

  Fig. 2 Cumulative survival rate according to materials of implant-supported prostheses. There are no significant differences between groups (P > .05).

• 

  Fig. 3 Cumulative success rate of total implant supported prostheses.

• 

  Fig. 4 Cumulative success rate according to materials of implant-supported prostheses. There are no significant differences between groups (P > .05).

Reference

1. Fehmer V, Mühlemann S, Hämmerle CH, Sailer I. Criteria for the selection of restoration materials. Quintessence Int. 2014; 45:723–730.

2. Benic GI, Mühlemann S, Fehmer V, Hämmerle CH, Sailer I. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part I: digital versus conventional unilateral impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116:777–782.

3. Guess PC, Att W, Strub JR. Zirconia in fixed implant prosthodontics. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14:633–645.

4. Silva NR, Bonfante EA, Zavanelli RA, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL, Coelho PG. Reliability of metalloceramic and zirconia-based ceramic crowns. J Dent Res. 2010; 89:1051–1056.

5. Walton TR. An up-to-15-year comparison of the survival and complication burden of three-unit tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses and implant-supported single crowns. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30:851–861.

6. Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90:121–132.

7. Göthberg C, Bergendal T, Magnusson T. Complications after treatment with implant-supported fixed prostheses: a retrospective study. Int J Prosthodont. 2003; 16:201–207.

8. Byun SJ, Heo SM, Ahn SG, Chang M. Analysis of proximal contact loss between implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and adjacent teeth in relation to influential factors and effects. A cross-sectional study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26:709–714.

9. Yoon JH, Park YB, Youn SH, Oh NS. Korea Academy of Prosthodontics criteria for longevity studies of dental prostheses. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2016; 54:341–353.

10. Pjetursson BE, Valente NA, Strasding M, Zwahlen M, Liu S, Sailer I. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic single crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29:199–214.

11. Buser D, Weber HP, Lang NP. Tissue integration of non-submerged implants. 1-year results of a prospective study with 100 ITI hollow-cylinder and hollow-screw implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1990; 1:33–40.

12. Cochran DL, Buser D, ten Bruggenkate CM, Weingart D, Taylor TM, Bernard JP, Peters F, Simpson JP. The use of reduced healing times on ITI implants with a sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface: early results from clinical trials on ITI SLA implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002; 13:144–153.

13. Pjetursson BE, Tan K, Lang NP, Brägger U, Egger M, Zwahlen M. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004; 15:625–642.

14. Koori H, Morimoto K, Tsukiyama Y, Koyano K. Statistical analysis of the diachronic loss of interproximal contact between fixed implant prostheses and adjacent teeth. Int J Prosthodont. 2010; 23:535–540.

15. Chopra A, Sivaraman K, Narayan AI, Balakrishnan D. Etiology and classification of food impaction around implants and implant-retained prosthesis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019; 21:391–397.

16. Michalakis KX, Pissiotis AL, Hirayama H. Cement failure loads of 4 provisional luting agents used for the cementation of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000; 15:545–549.

17. In J, Lee DK. Survival analysis: Part I - analysis of time-to-event. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2018; 71:182–191.

18. Lin RS, León LF. Estimation of treatment effects in weighted log-rank tests. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017; 8:147–155.

19. Sailer I, Strasding M, Valente NA, Zwahlen M, Liu S, Pjetursson BE. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic multiple-unit fixed dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29:184–198.

20. Schneider D, Witt L, Hämmerle CHF. Influence of the crown-to-implant length ratio on the clinical performance of implants supporting single crown restorations: a cross-sectional retrospective 5-year investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23:169–174.

21. Kolgeci L, Mericske E, Worni A, Walker P, Katsoulis J, Mericske-Stern R. Technical complications and failures of zirconia-based prostheses supported by implants followed up to 7 years: a case series. Int J Prosthodont. 2014; 27:544–552.