Premium
Bone level change at implant‐supported fixed partial dentures with and without cantilever extension after 5 years in function
Author(s) -
Wennström Jan,
Zurdo Jose,
Karlsson Stig,
Ekestubbe Annika,
Gröndahl Kerstin,
Lindhe Jan
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
journal of clinical periodontology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.456
H-Index - 151
eISSN - 1600-051X
pISSN - 0303-6979
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-051x.2004.00603.x
Subject(s) - dentistry , implant , medicine , maxilla , orthodontics , surgery
Objective: The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyze whether the inclusion of cantilever extensions increased the amount of marginal bone loss at free‐standing, implant‐supported, fixed partial dentures (FPDs) over a 5‐year period of functional loading. Material and Methods: The patient material comprised 45 periodontally treated, partially dentate patients with a total of 50 free‐standing FPDs supported by implants of the Astra Tech® System. Following FPD placement (baseline) the patients were enrolled in an individually designed supportive care program. A set of criteria was collected at baseline to characterize the FPDs. The primary outcome variable was change in peri‐implant bone level from the time of FPD placement to the 5‐year follow‐up examination. The comparison between FPDs with and without cantilevers was performed at three levels: FPD level, implant level, and surface level. Bivariate analysis was performed by the use of the Mann–Whitney U ‐test and stepwise regression analysis was utilized to evaluate the potential influence of confounding factors on the change in peri‐implant bone level. Results: The overall mean marginal bone loss for the implant‐supported FPDs after 5 years in function was 0.4 mm (SD, 0.76). The bone level change at FPDs placed in the maxilla was significantly greater than that for FPDs in the mandible (0.6 versus 0.2 mm; p <0.05). No statistically significant differences were found with regard to peri‐implant bone level change over the 5 years between FPDs with and without cantilevers at any of the levels of comparisons. The multivariate analysis revealed that the variables jaw of treatment and smoking had a significant influence on peri‐implant bone level change on the FPD level, but not on the implant or surface levels. The model explained only 10% of the observed variance in the bone level change. Conclusion: The study failed to demonstrate that the presence of cantilever extensions in an FPD had an effect on peri‐implant bone loss.