4.7 Article

Immediate Maxillary Full-Arch Rehabilitation of Periodontal Patients with Terminal Dentition Using Tilted Implants and Bone Augmentation: A 5-Year Retrospective Cohort Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11102902

关键词

immediate implants; tilted implants; periodontitis; marginal bone loss

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of ultrasound frequency errors on structural and functional assessments was studied, and their effects on different tissue types were analyzed.
Background: All-on-four protocols with tilted implants in the maxilla are used to rehabilitate the terminal dentition of the severe generalized periodontitis patients. Data on long-term biological complications are scarce. Methods: Eighty-four axial and forty-six tilted immediate implants have been placed in the extraction sockets of 23 patients according to a four-six implants protocol combined with ridge augmentation. Within 72 h, a provisional prosthesis was cemented to the implants; after 6 months, a cemented ceramic-metallic prosthesis was delivered. The patients were followed for up to 5 years. Results: The 5-year survival rate of the straight and tilted implants was 100% and 97.8, and the prosthetic one was 100%. Marginal bone loss (MBL) of the straight implants was 0.42 +/- 0.67 and 0.59 +/- 1.01 mm on the mesial and distal sides; for the tilted, it was 0.37 +/- 0.68 and 0.34 +/- 0.62 mm, and the differences were not statistically significant. Implant position, smoking, keratinized mucosal width, and cantilever did not affect MBL. Peri-implant mucositis involved 29.4% and 22.2% of the straight and tilted implants, respectively; peri-implantitis involved 5.8% and 4.4% of the straight and tilted implants, respectively, without statistical significance. Conclusions: This immediate loading protocol's 5-year survival and success rates were high. No difference between the straight and tilted implants was found regarding survival, success rates, and MBL.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据