Advertisement

Odontology

pp 1–10 | Cite as

A clinical study on the 6-year outcomes of immediately loaded three implants for completely edentulous mandibles: “the all-on-3 concept”

  • Mustafa Ayna
  • Keyvan Sagheb
  • Ralf Gutwald
  • Henning Wieker
  • Christian Flörke
  • Yahya Açil
  • Jörg Wiltfang
  • Aydin GülsesEmail author
Original Article
  • 91 Downloads

Abstract

The objective of the current study was to demonstrate the 6-year clinical and radiological treatment outcomes of the technique performed by immediately loading of three implants (single straight in the mid-line and two tilted distal implants) for the management of total edentulous mandibles and introduce a simple decision matrix for selection of the most appropriate protocol in cases with insufficient length of the interforaminal area. Re-assessments were performed over a total observation period of 6 years after surgery via measurement of bone resorption around implants, bleeding on probing, plaque accumulation, periodontal probing depth, bite force measurements and oral health impact profile. A total of 29 patients (45% women and 55% men) with a mean age of 65 ± 6 years enrolled in the study. 14 patients received an acryl-based bridge as definitive prosthetic restoration and 15 patients received a ceramic-based restoration. Both during the immediate loading phase and during the 6-year follow-up, there was no implantation loss. Regardless of the implant position, all implants showed continuous bone loss over the observation time. The bone loss around dental implants during observation period was only maximum 1.0 ± 1 mm and it remained well within the limits for ‘success’ according to the 2007 Pisa consensus (< 2 mm). The plaque index showed no significant fluctuations between the implant positions and the individual examination times. The approach described herein might help the surgeon by avoiding unnecessary loss of bone strength, selecting implant sites, and establishing the biomechanical advantage of increased A–P spread for immediate function.

Keywords

Mandible Immediate loading Implant Tilted 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Eylem Ugur Gülses for conducting the statistical analysis of the manuscript.

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All the procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The study was approved by the Ethics Review Committee (NEAH/12.15.2015#498).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Maló P, Rangert B, Nobre M. “All-on-Four” immediate-function concept with Branemark System implants for completely edentulous mandibles: a retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5(Suppl 1):2–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lopes A, Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Sánchez-Fernández E, Gravito I. The Nobel Guide® All-on-4® treatment concept for rehabilitation of edentulous jaws: a retrospective report on the 7-years clinical and 5-years radiographic outcomes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19:233–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Galindo DF, Butura CC. Immediately loaded mandibular fixed implant prostheses using the all-on-four protocol: a report of 183 consecutively treated patients with 1 year of function in definitive prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27:628–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ayna M, Gülses A, Acil Y. A comparative study on 7-year results of “All-on-Four™” immediate-function concept for completely edentulous mandibles: metal-ceramic vs. bar-retained superstructures. Odontology. 2018;106:73–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krekmanov L, Kahn M, Rangert B, Lindström H. Tilting of posterior mandibular and maxillary implants for improved prosthesis support. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15:405–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Silva GC, Mendonça JA, Lopes LR, Landre J Jr. Stress patterns on implants in prostheses supported by four or six implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:239–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Resnick R. Removable implant complications. In: Misch C, Resnick R, editors. Misch’s avoiding complications in oral implantology. St. Louis: Mosby; 2018. p. 580–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Misch J. Lehrbuch der Grenzgebiete der Medizin und Zahnheilkunde. Leipzig: FC Vogel; 1922.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Soto-Penaloza D, Zaragozí-Alonso R, Penarrocha-Diago M, Penarrocha-Diago M. The all-on-four treatment concept: systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9:e474–88.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taruna M, Chittaranjan B, Sudheer N, Tella S, Abusaad M. Prosthodontic perspective to All-On-4® concept for dental implants. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8:ZE16–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Gravito I. All-on-4® treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the completely edentulous mandible: a 7-year clinical and 5-year radiographic retrospective case series with risk assessment for implant failure and marginal bone level. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(Suppl 2):e531–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ayna M, Wessing B, Gutwald R, Neff A, Ziebart T, Açil Y, Wiltfang J, Gülses A. A 5-year prospective clinical trial on short implants (6 mm) for single tooth replacement in the posterior maxilla: immediate versus delayed loading. Odontology. 2019;107:244–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    John MT, Patrick DL, Slade GD. The German version of the Oral Health Impact Profile—translation and psychometric properties. Eur J Oral Sci. 2002;110:425–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mombelli A, Van Oosten MAC, Schürch E, Lang NP. The microbiota associated with successful or failing osseointegrated titanium implants. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 1987;2:145–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brånemark PI, Engstrand P, Ohrnell LO, Gröndahl K, Nilsson P, Hagberg K, Darle C, Lekholm U. Brånemark Novum: a new treatment concept for rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible. Preliminary results from a prospective clinical follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 1999;1:2–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henry PJ, van Steenberghe D, Blombäck U, Polizzi G, Rosenberg R, Urgell JP, Wendelhag I. Prospective multicenter study on immediate rehabilitation of edentulous lower jaws according to the Brånemark Novum protocol. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5:137–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Engstrand P, Gröndahl K, Ohrnell LO, Nilsson P, Nannmark U, Brånemark PI. Prospective follow-up study of 95 patients with edentulous mandibles treated according to the Brånemark Novum concept. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5(1):3–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ayna M, Gülses A, Açil Y. Comprehensive comparison of the 5-year results of all-on-4 mandibular implant systems with acrylic and ceramic suprastructures. J Oral Implantol. 2015;41:675–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Primo BT, Mezzari LM, da Fontoura Frasca LC, Linderman R, Rivaldo EG. Clinical and radiographic assessment of three-implant-supported fixed-prosthesis rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible: immediate versus delayed loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33:653–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu J, Pan S, Dong J, Mo Z, Fan Y, Feng H. Influence of implant number on the biomechanical behaviour of mandibular implant-retained/supported overdentures: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Dent. 2013;41:241–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sadowsky SJ, Caputo AA. Stress transfer of four mandibular implant overdenture cantilever designs. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92:328–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ebadian B, Mosharraf R, Khodaeian N. Effect of cantilever length on stress distribution around implants in mandibular overdentures supported by two and three implants. Eur J Dent. 2016;10:333–40.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zarb GA, Alberktsson T. Criteria for determining clinical success with osseointegrated dental implants. Cah Prothese. 1990;71:19–26.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zitzmann NU, Krastl G, Hecker H, Walter C, Weiger R. Endodontics or implants? A review of decisive criteria and guidelines for single tooth restorations and full arch reconstructions. Int Endod J. 2009;42:757–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Misch CE, Perel ML, Wang HL, et al. Implant success, survival, and failure: the International Congress of Oral Implantologists (ICOI) Pisa Consensus Conference. Implant Dent. 2008;17:5–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Menassa M, de Grandmont P, Audy N, Durand R, Rompré P, Emami E. Patients’ expectations, satisfaction, and quality of life with immediate loading protocol. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:83–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nogawa T, Takayama Y, Ishida K, Yokoyama A. Comparison of treatment outcomes in partially edentulous patients with implant-supported fixed prostheses and removable partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31:1376–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pomares C. A retrospective study of edentulous patients rehabilitated according to the ‘all-on-four’ or the ‘all-on-six’ immediate function concept using flapless computer-guided implant surgery. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2010;3:155–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of The Nippon Dental University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mustafa Ayna
    • 1
  • Keyvan Sagheb
    • 2
  • Ralf Gutwald
    • 3
  • Henning Wieker
    • 4
  • Christian Flörke
    • 4
  • Yahya Açil
    • 4
  • Jörg Wiltfang
    • 4
  • Aydin Gülses
    • 4
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Center for Dental ImplantologyDuisburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryUniversity of MainzMainzGermany
  3. 3.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryDanube Private UniversityDanubeAustria
  4. 4.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryChristian Albrechts UniversityKielGermany
  5. 5.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryChristian Albrechts University, UKSHKielGermany

Personalised recommendations