Advertisement

Immediate Loading in All-on-Four

  • Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago
  • Javier Aizcorbe-Vicente
  • Vicente Ruz-Domínguez
  • David Soto-Peñaloza
  • David Peñarrocha-OltraEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Severe bone atrophy of the upper maxilla (Cawood and Howell class V and VI) is associated with certain problems such as reduced perioral tissue support, the impossibility of wearing complete dentures, chewing and speech alterations, and difficulties in placing dental implants due to the limited amount of available bone.

The “all-on-four” treatment concept was developed to maximize the use of available remnant bone in atrophic jaws, allowing immediate function and avoiding regenerative procedures that increase the treatment costs and patient morbidity, as well as the complications inherent to these procedures. The protocol uses four implants in the anterior part of complete edentulous jaws to support a provisional, fixed, and immediately loaded prosthesis. The two most anterior implants are placed axially, whereas the two posterior implants are placed distally and angled to minimize the cantilever length and to allow the application of prostheses with up to 12 teeth, thereby enhancing masticatory efficiency. From a biomechanical point of view, the rationale for the use of only four implants is that when the force is applied to the more distal part of the prosthesis, the 90% of the strength is absorbed by the more distal implants. The rest (10%) is absorbed by the two more anterior implants.

For this chapter we reviewed the literature, and this approach showed implant survival rates around 93.8–100% up to 10 years for both jaws, based on a sample of 11,627 implants. Regarding the jaw, an implant survival rate of 95.4–100% is expected for the mandible up to 7 years. For the maxilla, an implant survival rate of 95.7–100% is expected up to 6 years.

Keywords

All-on-four Immediate loading Atrophic jaws Edentulous Survival rate Surgical technique: full-arch 

References

  1. Agliardi EL, Francetti L, Romeo D, et al. Immediate loading in the fully edentulous maxilla without bone grafting: the V-II-V technique. Minerva Stomatol. 2008;57:251–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Agliardi E, Francetti L, Romeo D, et al. Immediate rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla: preliminary results of a single cohort prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:887–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Agliardi E, Panigatti S, Clericò M, et al. Immediate rehabilitation of the edentulous jaws with full fixed prostheses supported by four implants: interim results of a single cohort prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:459–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen PF, McMillan AS. A longitudinal study of quality of life outcomes in older adults requesting implant prostheses and complete removable dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14:173–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aloy-Prósper A, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago MA, et al. The outcome of intraoral onlay block bone grafts on alveolar ridge augmentations: a systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015;20:e251–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alzoubi F, Bedrossian E, Wong A, et al. Outcome assessment of treating completely edentulous patients with a fixed implant-supported profile prosthesis utilizing a graftless approach. Part 1: Clinically related outcomes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017a;32:897–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alzoubi F, Bedrossian E, Wong A, et al. Outcome assessment of treating completely edentulous patients with a fixed implant-supported profile prosthesis utilizing a graftless approach. Part II: Patient-related outcomes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017b;32:1080–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aparicio C, Perales P, Rangert B. Tilted implants as an alternative to maxillary sinus grafting: a clinical, radiologic, and periotest study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2001;3:39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Araújo RTE, Sverzut AT, Trivellato AE, et al. Retrospective analysis of 129 consecutive zygomatic implants used to rehabilitate severely resorbed maxillae in a two-stage protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32:377–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Babbush CA, Kanawati A, Brokloff J. A new approach to the All-on-Four treatment concept using narrow platform NobelActive implants. J Oral Implantol. 2013;39:314–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Babbush CA, Kanawati A, Kotsakis GA. Marginal bone stability around tapered, platform-shifted implants placed with an immediately loaded four-implant-supported fixed prosthetic concept: a cohort study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31:643–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Balshi TJ, Wolfinger GJ, Slauch RW, et al. A retrospective analysis of 800 Branemark System implants following the All-on-Four protocol. J Prosthodont. 2014;23:83–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Branemark PI, Svensson B, van Steenberghe D. Ten-year survival rates of fixed prostheses on four or six implants ad modum Branemark in full edentulism. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995;6:227–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Branemark PI, Grondahl K, Ohrnell LO, et al. Zygoma fixture in the management of advanced atrophy of the maxilla: technique and long-term results. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2004;38:70–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Browaeys H, Dierens M, Ruyffelaert C, et al. Ongoing crestal bone loss around implants subjected to computer-guided flapless surgery and immediate loading using the all-on-4(r) concept. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17:831–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brunski JB. Biomechanical aspects of the optimal number of implants to carry a cross-arch full restoration. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014;7(Suppl2):S111–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Busenlechner D, Mailath-Pokorny G, Haas R, et al. Graftless full-arch implant rehabilitation with interantral implants and immediate or delayed loading—Part I: Reconstruction of the edentulous maxilla. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016a;31:900–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Busenlechner D, Mailath-Pokorny G, Haas R, et al. Graftless full-arch implant rehabilitation with interantral implants and immediate or delayed loading—Part II: Transition from the failing maxillary dentition. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016b;31:1150–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Butura CC, Galindo DF, Jensen OT. Mandibular all-on-four therapy using angled implants: a three-year clinical study of 857 implants in 219 jaws. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2011;23:289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Calandriello R, Tomatis M. Simplified treatment of the atrophic posterior maxilla via immediate/early function and tilted implants: a prospective 1-year clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Candel E, Peñarrocha D, Peñarrocha M. Rehabilitation of the atrophic posterior maxilla with pterygoid implants: a review. J Oral Implantol. 2012;38:461–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Candel-Marti E, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Bagán L, et al. Palatal positioned implants in severely atrophic maxillae versus conventional implants to support fixed full-arch prostheses: controlled retrospective study with 5 years of follow-up. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015a;20:e357–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Candel-Marti E, Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Peñarrocha-Diago MA, et al. Satisfaction and quality of life with palatal positioned implants in severely atrophic maxillae versus conventional implants supporting fixed full-arch prostheses. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2015b;20:e751–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Capelli M, Zuffetti F, Testori T, et al. Immediate rehabilitation of the completely edentulous jaws with fixed prostheses supported by upright and tilted implants. A multicenter clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22:639–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Cavalli N, Barbaro B, Spasari D, et al. Tilted implants for full-arch rehabilitations in completely edentulous maxilla: a retrospective study. Int J Dent. 2012;2012:180379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cawood JI, Howell RA. A classification of the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988;17:232–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Crespi R, Vinci R, Cappare P, et al. A clinical study of edentulous patients rehabilitated according to the “all on four” immediate function protocol. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27:428–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. De Bruyn H, Raes S, Östman PO, et al. Immediate loading in partially and completely edentulous jaws: a review of the literature with clinical guidelines. Periodontol. 2014;66:153–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Di P, Lin Y, Li JH, et al. The All-on-Four implant therapy protocol in the management of edentulous Chinese patients. Int J Prosthodont. 2013;26:509–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Esposito M, Barausse C, Pistilli R, et al. Short implants versus bone augmentation for placing longer implants in atrophic maxillae: one-year post-loading results of a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2015;8:257–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Felice P, Soardi E, Pellegrino G, et al. Treatment of the atrophic edentulous maxilla: short implants versus bone augmentation for placing longer implants. Five-month post-loading results of a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2011;4:191–202.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Fortin Y. Placement of zygomatic implants into the malar prominence of the maxillary bone for apical fixation: a clinical report of 5 to 13 years. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32:633–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fortin Y, Sullivan R, Rangert BR. The marius implant bridge: surgical and prosthetic rehabilitation for the completely edentulous upper jaw with moderate to severe resorption: a 5-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2002;4:69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Francetti L, Agliardi E, Testori T, et al. Immediate rehabilitation of the mandible with fixed full prosthesis supported by axial and tilted implants: interim results of a single cohort prospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2008;10:255–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Francetti L, Romeo D, Corbella S, et al. Bone level changes around axial and tilted implants in full-arch fixed immediate restorations. Interim results of a prospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14:646–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jensen OT, Cullum DR, Baer D. Marginal bone stability using 3 different flap approaches for alveolar split expansion for dental implants—a 1-year clinical study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67:1921–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jensen OT, Ringeman JL, Cottam JR, et al. Orthognathic and osteoperiosteal flap augmentation strategies for maxillary dental implant reconstruction. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin N Am. 2011;23:301–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Koutouzis T, Wennström JL. Bone level changes at axial- and non axial-positioned implants supporting fixed partial dentures. A 5-year retrospective longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18:585–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Krekmanov L. Placement of posterior mandibular and maxillary implants in patients with severe bone deficiency: a clinical report of procedure. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15:722–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Krekmanov L, Kahn M, Rangert B, et al. Tilting of posterior mandibular and maxillary implants of improved prosthesis support. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2000;15:405–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Lopes A, Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, et al. The NobelGuide(R) All-on-4(R) treatment concept for rehabilitation of edentulous jaws: a prospective report on medium- and long-term outcomes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17:e406–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lopes LF, Da Silva VF, Santiago JF, et al. Placement of dental implants in the maxillary tuberosity: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015;44:229–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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. 2003a;5(Suppl. 1):2–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Maló P, Friberg B, Polizzi G, et al. Immediate and early function of Branemark System implants placed in the esthetic zone: a 1-year prospective clinical multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003b;5(Suppl. 1):37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Maló P, Rangert B, Nobre M. All-on-4 immediate-function concept with Branemark System implants for completely edentulous maxillae: a 1-year retrospective clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7(Suppl. 1):S88–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maló P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, et al. A longitudinal study of the survival of All-on-4 implants in the mandible with up to 10 years of follow-up. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011;142:310–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Maló P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, et al. “All-on-4” immediate-function concept for completely edentulous maxillae: a clinical report on the medium (3 years) and long-term (5 years) outcomes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14:e139–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Maló P, de Araujo Nobre MA, Lopes AV, et al. Immediate loading short implants inserted on low bone quantity for the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla using an All-on-4 design. J Oral Rehabil. 2015a;42:615–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maló P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A. All-on-4(R) 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. 2015b;17:e531–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maló P, Araujo Nobre MD, Lopes A, et al. Double full-arch versus single full-arch, four implant-supported rehabilitations: a retrospective, 5-year cohort study. J Prosthodont. 2015c;24:263–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Muller F, Naharro M, Carlsson GE. What are the prevalence and incidence of tooth loss in the adult and elderly population in Europe? Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(Suppl. 3):2–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Niedermaier R, Stelzle F, Riemann M, et al. Implant-supported immediately loaded fixed full-arch dentures: evaluation of implant survival rates in a case cohort of up to 7 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19:4–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nkenke E, Neukam FW. Autogenous bone harvesting and grafting in the advanced jaw resorption: morbidity, resorption and implant survival. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014;7(Suppl2):S203–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Nyström E, Nilson H, Gunne J, et al. Reconstruction of the atrophic maxilla with interpositional bone grafting/Le Fort I osteotomy and endosteal implants: a 11–16 year follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;38:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Peñarrocha M, Carrillo C, Boronat A, et al. Palatal positioning of implants in severely resorbed edentulous maxillae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:527–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Peñarrocha M, Carrillo C, Boronat A, et al. Maximum use of the anterior maxillary buttress in severe maxillary atrophy with tilted, palatally positioned implants: a preliminary study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:813–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Peñarrocha M, Viña JA, Carrillo C, et al. Rehabilitation of the resorbed maxillae with implants in buttresses in patients with combination syndrome. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70:e322–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Peñarrocha D, Candel E, Guirado JL, et al. Implants placed in the nasopalatine canal to rehabilitate severely atrophic maxillae: a retrospective study with long follow-up. J Oral Implantol. 2014;40:699–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Penarrocha-Diago M, Penarrocha-Diago M, Zaragozi-Alonso R, et al. Consensus statements and clinical recommendations on treatment indications, surgical procedures, prosthetic protocols and complications following All-On-4 standard treatment. 9th Mozo-Grau Ticare Conference in Quintanilla, Spain. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9:e712–5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Peñarrocha-Oltra D, Candel-Martí E, Peñarrocha-Diago M, et al. Palatal positioning of implants in severely atrophic edentulous maxillae: five-year cross-sectional retrospective follow-up study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28:1140–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pjetursson BE, Tan WC, Zwahlen M, et al. A systematic review of the success of sinus floor elevation and survival of implants inserted in combination with sinus floor elevation. Part I: Lateral approach. J Clin Periodontol. 2008;35(Suppl. 8):216–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rangert B, Jemt T, Jorneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989;4:241–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Rossetti PH, Bonachela WC, Rossetti LM. Relevant anatomic and biomechanical studies for implant possibilities on the atrophic maxilla: critical appraisal and literature review. J Prosthodont. 2010;19:449–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sannino G, Barlattani A. Straight versus angulated abutments on tilted implants in immediate fixed rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible: a 3-year retrospective comparative study. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29:219–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sbordone L, Toti P, Menchini-Fabris GB, et al. Implant survival in maxillary and mandibular osseous onlay grafts and native bone: a 3-year clinical and computerized tomographic follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24:695–703.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Sbordone C, Toti P, Guidetti F, et al. Volume changes of iliac crest autogenous bone grafts after vertical and horizontal alveolar ridge augmentation of atrophic maxillas and mandibles: a 6-year computerized tomographic follow-up. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012;70:2559–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Soto-Peñaloza D, Zaragozí-Alonso R, Peñarrocha-Diago M, Peñarrocha-Diago M. The all-on-four treatment concept: systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9:e474–88.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. Sutton DN, Lewis BR, Patel M, et al. Changes in facial form relative to progressive atrophy of the edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;33:676–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tallarico M, Canullo L, Pisano M, et al. An up to 7-year retrospective analysis of biologic and technical complication with the All-on-4 concept. J Oral Implantol. 2016a;42:265–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tallarico M, Meloni SM, Canullo L, et al. Five-year results of a randomized controlled trial comparing patients rehabilitated with immediately loaded maxillary cross-arch fixed dental prosthesis supported by four or six implants placed using guided surgery. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016b;18:965–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Testori T, Del Fabbro M, Capelli M, et al. Immediate occlusal loading and tilted implants for the rehabilitation of the atrophic edentulous maxilla: 1-year interim results of a multicenter prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:227–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Testori T, Galli F, Fumagalli L, et al. Assessment of long-term survival of immediately loaded tilted implants supporting a maxillary full-arch fixed prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32:904–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Urban IA, Monje A, Lozada JL, et al. Long-term evaluation of peri-implant bone level after reconstruction of severely atrophic edentulous maxilla via vertical and horizontal guide bone regeneration in combination with sinus augmentation: a case series with 1 to 15 years of loading. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19:46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wallace SS, Froum SJ. Effect of maxillary sinus augmentation on the survival of endosseous dental implants. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol. 2003;8:328–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miguel Peñarrocha-Diago
    • 1
  • Javier Aizcorbe-Vicente
    • 1
  • Vicente Ruz-Domínguez
    • 2
  • David Soto-Peñaloza
    • 1
  • David Peñarrocha-Oltra
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Oral Surgery Unit, Department of Stomatology, Faculty of Medicine and DentistryUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Private Clinical Practice, Clínica Drs. Ruz.Montilla, CordobaSpain

Personalised recommendations