Implant Survival Rate and Marginal Bone Loss with the All-on-4 Immediate-Loading Strategy: A Clinical Retrospective Study with 1 to 4 Years of Follow-Up.
Qingxia Yang,Xiaoxu Guan,Baixiang Wang,Denghui Zhang,Jingyao Bai,Xiaoting Zhang,Yi Zhou
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.12.020
IF: 4.148
2022-01-01
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Abstract:Statement of problem Assessing peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) and its risk factors with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) may clarify the risk factors for the all-on-4 (5 or 6) strategy and further improve its survival rate.Purpose The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate the implant survival rate, MBL, and associated risk factors of all-on-4 (5 or 6) prostheses after 1 to 4 years of follow-up with CBCT.Material and methods A total of 56 participants rehabilitated with 325 implants by using the all-on-4 (5 or 6) concept between October 2015 and December 2019 were included. Outcome measures were cumulative implant survival (life-table analysis) and MBL. Four CBCT scans, a scan immediately after surgery (T0), a scan 1 year after surgery (T1), a scan 2 years after surgery (T2), and a scan 3 to 4 years after treatment (T3), were obtained to evaluate the MBL. The Pearson correlation coefficient analysis and linear mixed models were performed to assess the potential risk factors for MBL (alpha=.05).Results The implant survival rate was 99.38%, and the prosthesis survival rate was 100%. The reductions in the vertical buccal bone height (triangle VBBH) were 0.74 +/- 0.10 mm (T0-T1), 0.37 +/- 0.12 mm (T1-T2), and 0.15 +/- 0.14 mm (T2-T3). Except for T2-T3, the triangle VBBH showed a significant difference at T0-T1 and T1-T2 (P <=.05). The alterations in vertical mesial bone height (VMBH), vertical distal bone height (VDBH), and vertical lingual bone height (VLBH) were similar to the trend observed in VBBH. The triangle VBBH (T0-T3) was negatively correlated with the horizontal buccal bone thickness (HBBT) (T0) (r=-.394, P<.001). Linear mixed models revealed that factors such as smoking (P=.001), mandible implant site (P<.001), immediate implant (P=.026), tilted implant (P<.001), female sex (P=.003), systemic disease (P=.025), and bruxism (P=.022) negatively affected MBL. The cantilever length (CL) also had a negative effect on MBL around the implants at the distal extension (P<.001).Conclusions The high implant and prosthesis survival rates and low MBL confirmed the predictability of the all-on-4 (5 or 6) concept. Smoking, mandible implant site, systemic disease, bruxism, female sex, immediate implant, tilted implant, and CL were identified as potential risk factors for MBL.