Clinical and radiographic classification of implant supported prosthesis for edentulous patients
https://doi.org/10.33925/1683-3759-2019-24-2-157-160
Abstract
Relevance. In domestic and foreign professional literature there is a lack of aggregated consolidated data about immediate long span implant supported prosthesis which could be fundamental in making decision making process during the treatment planning stage, as well as at the estimation of quality of implant supported prosthetics. The aim of this study – the creation of a conceptual model of the standard implant prosthetics for edentulous patients.
Materials and methods. A comprehensive examination and implantation prosthetics 382 patients aged 38 to 84 years (211 women, 171 men) with 582 implant supported prosthesis of various types, supporting on implants "Nobel Replace Select / Groove», «Nobel Parallel CC», «Nobel Speedy Groove», «Nobel Trefoil CC» (3775 implants). We have created a new clinical and radiographic classifcation of implant-supported prosthesis for edentulous patients.
Result. As a result of the classifcation in the I (1-2 implants) class rallied 6.2% of implant supported prosthesis, to II class (3-4 implant, «TREFOIL» included) was assigned 19.2% of prostheses, to III class (5-6 implants) – 30.2% of replacement structures IV- to (7-10 implants) – 44%, and V – 0,3%. Meanwhile II, III, IV classes and I statistically revealed age differences.
Conclusions: We have sorted out fve main classes, 8 subclasses and 18 groups with 34 subgroups of implant supported prosthesis based on the number of abutments, type of prosthesis, retention method and the presence of unilateral or bilateral cantilever.
About the Authors
R. A. Rozov
Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
PhD, Associate Professor
Department of prosthodontics and dental materials, Faculty of Dentistry
Saint Petersburg
V. N. Trezubov
Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
PhD, MD, Professor
Department of prosthodontics and dental materials, Faculty of Dentistry
Saint Petersburg
Glen Liddelow
University of Western Australia
Australia
Clinical Associate Professor
Australia
Clinical Associate Professor
References
1. H.A. Ismail, A.I. Mahrous, F.H. Banasr, Т.А. Soliman, Y. Baraka. Two Years Retrospective Evaluation of Overdenture Retained by Symphyseal Single Implant Using Two Types of Attachments. J Int Oral Health. 2015;Jun;7(6):4-8. Review. PubMed PMID: 26124591.
2. M. Schimmel, M. Srinivasan, F.R. Herrmann, F. Miiller. Loading protocols for implant-supported overdentures in the edentulous jaw: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29;Suppl:271-86. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g4.4.
3. G.L. Stafford. Survival rates of short-span implant-supported cantilever fixed dental prostheses. Evid Based Dent. 2010;11(2):50-1. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400722.
4. P. Papaspyridakos, C.J. Chen, S.K. Chuang, H.P. Weber. Implant loading protocols for edentulous patients with fixed prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29Suppl:256-70. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2014suppl.g4.3.
5. A. Gupta, D.A. Felton, T. Jemt, S. Koka. Rehabilitation of Edentulism and Mortality: A Systematic Review. J Prosthodont. 2018;Mar:23. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12792.
6. P. Papaspyridakos, T.B. Bordin, Z.S. Natto, Y.J. Kim, K. El-Rafie, A. Tsigarida, K. Chochlidakis, H.P. Weber. Double Full-Arch Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses: Outcomes and Complications after a Mean Follow-Up of 5 Years. J Prosthodont. 2019;Feb:22. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13040.
7. M. Tischler, C. Patch, A.S. Bidra. Rehabilitation of edentulous jaws with zirconia complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses: An up to 4-year retrospective clinical study. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;Aug;120(2):204-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.12.010.
8. D.E. Papadimitriou, S. Salari, C. Gannam, G.O. Gallucci, B. Friedland. Implant-prosthodontic classification of the edentulous jaw for treatment planning with fixed rehabilitations. Int J Prosthodont. 2014;Jul-Aug;27(4):320-7. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.3791.
9. P. Malo, B. Rangert, M. Nobre. "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(Suppl1):2-9. Review. PubMed PMID: 12691645.
10. G. Cannizzaro, P. Felice, I. Loi, P. Viola, V. Ferri, M. Leone, D. Collivasone, M. Esposito. Immediate loading of bimaxillary total fixed prostheses supported by five flapless-placed implants with machined surfaces: A 6-month follow-up prospective single cohort study. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2016;Spring;9(l):67-74. Review. PubMed PMID: 27022638.
11. P.I. Branemark, B.O. Hansson, R. Adell, U. Breine, J. Lindstrom, O. Hallen, A. Ohman. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl. 1977;16:1-132. Review. PubMed PMID: 356184.
12. G. Greenstein, J. Cavallaro Jr. Cantilevers extending from unilateral implant-supported fixed prostheses: a review of the literature and presentation of practical guidelines. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010;Oct;141(10):1221-30. Review. PubMed PMID: 20884924.
13. F.E. Lambert, H.P. Weber, S.M. Susarla, U.C. Belser, G.O. Gallucci. Descriptive analysis of implant and prosthodontic survival rates with fixed implant-supported rehabilitations in the edentulous maxilla. J Periodontol. 2009;Aug;80(8):1220-30. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.090109.
14. R.H. Batenburg, H.J. Meijer, G.M. Raghoebar, A. Vissink. Treatment concept for mandibular overdentures supported by endosseous implants: a literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;Jul-Aug;13(4):539-45. Review. PubMed PMID: 9714961.
15. N.U. Zitzmann, C.P. Marinello Treatment plan for restoring the edentulous maxilla with implant-supported restorations: removable overdenture versus fixed partial denture design. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;Aug;82(2):188-96. Review. PubMed PMID: 10424983.
16. V. Trezubov, R. Rozov, G. Azarin. Conceptual approach to classification of implant supported prosthesis for edentulous patients. Stomatologiya. 2017;96(1):51. https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat201796151-55.
Review
For citations:
Rozov RA, Trezubov VN, Liddelow G. Clinical and radiographic classification of implant supported prosthesis for edentulous patients. Parodontologiya. 2019;24(2):157-160. https://doi.org/10.33925/1683-3759-2019-24-2-157-160
Views:
1842
Email this article 