Tamara Pearson asked 19 saat ago
Abstract
This observational study retrospectively analyzes the outcomes of full dental implant rehabilitation in a cohort of patients treated at a single dental clinic. The study aims to evaluate implant survival rates, prosthetic success, patient satisfaction, and complications associated with full arch implant-supported prostheses. Data were collected from patient records, including demographic information, medical history, implant characteristics, prosthetic design, and follow-up assessments. The findings provide valuable insights into the long-term performance and patient-reported outcomes of full dental implant treatment.
Introduction
Edentulism, or complete tooth loss, significantly impacts oral function, aesthetics, and overall quality of life. While removable dentures have traditionally been the primary treatment option, they often present challenges related to stability, retention, and patient comfort. Full dental implant rehabilitation has emerged as a predictable and effective alternative, offering improved function, aesthetics, and psychological well-being.
Full dental implant treatment involves the placement of multiple implants in the edentulous arch, which then serve as anchors for a fixed or removable prosthesis. This approach provides superior stability and retention compared to conventional dentures, allowing patients to enjoy a wider range of foods and improved speech. Furthermore, implant-supported prostheses can help preserve alveolar bone, preventing further bone resorption that often occurs with denture use.
Despite the established benefits of full dental implant treatment, long-term outcomes and potential complications remain important considerations. This observational study aims to contribute to the existing body of evidence by retrospectively analyzing the outcomes of full dental implant rehabilitation in a cohort of patients treated at a single dental clinic. The study focuses on implant survival rates, prosthetic success, patient satisfaction, and the incidence of complications.
Materials and Methods
This retrospective observational study was conducted at a private dental clinic. Patient records were reviewed to identify individuals who had undergone full dental implant rehabilitation between January 2015 and December 2020. In case you cherished this short article as well as you want to get more details relating to complete dentistry and implants reviews kindly check out the site. The inclusion criteria were: (1) complete edentulism in either the maxilla or mandible, or both; (2) placement of at least four dental implants per arch; (3) delivery of a full arch implant-supported prosthesis; and (4) a minimum follow-up period of one year. Patients with incomplete records or insufficient follow-up data were excluded from the study.
Data were collected from patient charts, radiographs, and clinical photographs. The following information was recorded:
Patient Demographics: Age, gender, medical history (including systemic diseases and smoking status).
Implant Characteristics: Implant brand, diameter, length, number of implants per arch, location of implants, bone grafting procedures (if any).
Prosthetic Design: Type of prosthesis (fixed or removable), material of the prosthesis, occlusal scheme.
Follow-up Assessments: Implant survival (defined as the implant remaining in place and functional), peri-implant bone loss (measured on radiographs), prosthetic complications (e.g., screw loosening, fracture of the prosthesis), patient satisfaction (assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 10, with 10 representing the highest level of satisfaction), and any other complications (e.g., mucositis, peri-implantitis).
Implant survival was assessed based on clinical and radiographic examinations. Peri-implant bone loss was measured on standardized periapical radiographs taken at the time of implant placement and at the most recent follow-up appointment. Prosthetic complications were recorded based on clinical observations and patient reports. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the VAS at the most recent follow-up appointment.
Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, frequency, percentage) to summarize the data. Implant survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.
Results
A total of 85 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. The mean age of the patients was 65.2 years (SD = 8.5 years), and 58% were female. The majority of patients (72%) had at least one systemic disease, with hypertension and diabetes being the most common. 25% of the patients were smokers.
A total of 680 implants were placed in the 85 patients. The mean number of implants per arch was 8. The most commonly used implant brand was Straumann (45%), followed by Nobel Biocare (30%) and Zimmer Biomet (25%). Bone grafting procedures were performed in 35% of the patients.
The majority of patients (75%) received fixed implant-supported prostheses, while the remaining 25% received removable implant-supported prostheses. The most common material used for the prostheses was acrylic resin (60%), followed by zirconia (40%).
The overall implant survival rate was 96.5% after a mean follow-up period of 4.2 years (SD = 1.5 years). The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that the cumulative survival rate was 98% at 1 year, 97% at 3 years, and 96% at 5 years.
The mean peri-implant bone loss was 0.8 mm (SD = 0.5 mm) after the follow-up period. Prosthetic complications were observed in 20% of the patients, with screw loosening being the most common complication (12%), followed by fracture of the prosthesis (8%).
The mean patient satisfaction score was 8.5 (SD = 1.2) on the VAS. Other complications, such as mucositis and peri-implantitis, were observed in 15% of the patients.
Discussion
The results of this observational study demonstrate that full dental implant rehabilitation is a predictable and effective treatment option for edentulous patients. The high implant survival rate (96.5%) observed in this study is consistent with previous reports in the literature. The Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed that the cumulative survival rate remained high over the follow-up period, indicating the long-term stability of the implants.
The mean peri-implant bone loss (0.8 mm) was within the acceptable range, suggesting that the implants were well-integrated and maintained stable bone levels. Prosthetic complications were observed in a minority of patients, with screw loosening being the most common issue. This complication can often be addressed with routine maintenance and adjustments.
The high patient satisfaction scores indicate that patients were generally satisfied with the functional and aesthetic outcomes of full dental implant treatment. The improved stability and retention of implant-supported prostheses can significantly enhance patients’ ability to eat, speak, and socialize with confidence.
The incidence of mucositis and peri-implantitis was relatively low, suggesting that patients were able to maintain good oral hygiene and prevent the development of peri-implant diseases. Regular professional maintenance and patient education are essential for long-term implant success.
This study has several limitations. First, it is a retrospective observational study, which means that it is subject to potential biases and confounding factors. Second, the study was conducted at a single dental clinic, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Third, the follow-up period was relatively short, and longer-term studies are needed to assess the long-term performance of full dental implants.
Conclusion
Full dental implant rehabilitation is a predictable and effective treatment option for edentulous patients, providing high implant survival rates, minimal peri-implant bone loss, and high patient satisfaction. Prosthetic complications can occur but are often manageable with routine maintenance. Long-term follow-up is essential to monitor implant stability and prevent peri-implant diseases. Further research is needed to investigate the long-term outcomes of full dental implant treatment and to identify factors that may influence implant success.