Complication Rates and Patient Satisfaction Evaluation of Implant-Supported Prostheses

Abstract

Background: The aim of the study was to assess implant and prosthetic failure rates and patients’ evaluations following 2-year observation. Methods: The study was conducted among 110 patients (60 male, 50 female). During recall visits during the first and second year of prosthesis insertion, researchers conducted the clinical examination. A questionnaire was used to evaluate the patient’s satisfaction with the prostheses'. The obtained data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, Chi-Square, Mann-Witney, and Kruskal-Wallis analysis (α<0.05). Results: In the maxilla and the mandible, the most commonly used prosthesis was cement-retained fixed partial dentures (31.4% and 29.6%, respectively), while the least common procedures were full arch screw retained attachments (2.9% and 3.5%, respectively). The most commonly used material was metal-ceramic (64.2%). Survival rates of implants were similar in the maxilla (94.7%) and the mandible (95.2%) (P=0.544). Prosthesis survival rates were also similar (P=0.094): 76.2% were in the maxilla, and 78.3% were in the mandible. The highest technical and mechanical complication rates were observed in partial fixed denture prostheses inserted in the maxilla and the mandible (26.8% and 25.6%, respectively). In the maxilla and mandible, the most frequent complication was ceramic chipping (16.2% and 15.6%, respectively), followed by occlusal screw loosening (3.8% and 2.6%, respectively). Patients’ satisfaction rates ranged between 91%-95% in terms of function, aesthetics, and convenience. Conclusion: After a use time of 2 years, high survival rates and patient satisfaction ratings were obtained. There was no significant difference in implant failures, while prosthetic failures were higher in fixed partial dentures. Keywords: Dental implants, dentist, mandible, maxilla

Keywords

• Dental implants
• dentist
• mandible
• maxilla

İmplant Destekli Protezlerde Komplikasyonların ve Hasta Memnuniyetinin Değerlendirmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Çalışmanın amacı, 2 yıllık gözlemin ardından implant ve implant üstü protezlerdeki başarısızlık oranlarını ve hastaların memnuniyet oranlarını değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Çalışma 110 hasta (60 erkek, 50 kadın) üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Protezler hasta ağzına takıldıktan bir ve iki yıl sınra yapılan kontrol ziyaretleri sırasında araştırmacılar klinik muayeneleri gerçekleştirmiştir. Hastaların protez memnuniyetlerini değerlendirmek için de bir anket kullanılmıştır. Elde edilen veriler tanımlayıcı istatistikler, Ki-Kare, Mann-Witney ve Kruskal-Wallis analizleri ile analiz edilmiştir (α<0.05). Bulgular: Maksilla ve mandibulada en sık kullanılan protez siman tutuculu sabit protezler (sırasıyla %31,4 ve %29,6) iken, en az kullanılan tip tam ark vida tutuculu protezlerdir (sırasıyla %2,9 ve %3,5). En yaygın kullanılan materyal metal-seramiktir (%64,2). İmplantların sağkalım oranları maksilla (%94,7) ve mandibulada (%95,2) benzerdir (P=0,544). Protez sağkalım oranları da benzerdir (P=0.094). Maksilladaki protezlerin 76,2%'si ve mandibuldaki protezlerin %78,3'ü sağ kalmıştır. En yüksek teknik ve mekanik komplikasyon oranları maksilla ve mandibulaya yerleştirilen sabit protezlerde gözlenmiştir (sırasıyla %26,8 ve %25,6). Maksilla ve mandibulada en sık görülen komplikasyon seramikte çatlak oluşumu (sırasıyla %16,2 ve %15,6) ve bunu takiben oklüzal vida gevşemesi (sırasıyla %3,8 ve %2,6) olmuştur. Hastaların memnuniyet oranları fonksiyon, estetik ve kullanım kolaylığı açısından %91-%95 arasında değişmektedir. Sonuç: İki yıllık kullanım süresinin ardından, yüksek sağkalım oranları ve hasta memnuniyet dereceleri elde edilmiştir. İmplant başarısızlıklarında anlamlı bir fark görülmezken, protez başarısızlıkları sabit protezlerde daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Anahtar Kelimeler: Dental implant, diş hekimi, maksilla, mandibula

Keywords

• Dental implant
• diş hekimi
• maksilla
• mandibula

References

1. 1. Weber H-P, Sukotjo C. Does the type of implant prosthesis affect outcomes in the partially edentulous patient? Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(7)
2. 2. Demirekin ZB, Fındık Y. A Retrospective Clinical Evaluation Of Narrow Diameter Implant Supported Dental Prosthesis: Early Results. Selcuk Dent J. 2023;10(4):265-269.
3. 3. Çiftçi Asutay H, Yanıkoğlu N. The Effect of Different Angled Abutments With Peripheral Groove and Vent Hole on the Retention of Cement Retained Implant-Supported Restorations. Selcuk Dent J. 2024;11(1):49-54.
4. 4. Calandriello R, Tomatis M. Immediate occlusal loading of single lower molars using brånemark system® wide platform tiunite™ implants: A 5‐year follow‐up report of a prospective clinical multicenter study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2011;13(4):311-318.
5. 5. Muddugangadhar B, Amarnath G, Sonika R, Chheda PS, Garg A. Meta-analysis of failure and survival rate of implant-supported single crowns, fixed partial denture, and implant tooth-supported prostheses. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(9):11-17.
6. 6. Elsyad MA, Elgamal M, Mohammed Askar O, Youssef Al‐Tonbary G. Patient satisfaction and oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL) of conventional denture, fixed prosthesis and milled bar overdenture for All‐on‐4 implant rehabilitation. A crossover study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30(11):1107-1117.
7. 7. Brennan M, Houston F, O'Sullivan M, O'Connell B. Patient satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life outcomes of implant overdentures and fixed complete dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25(4):791-800.
8. 8. Niakan S, Mahgoli H, Afshari A, Mosaddad SA, Afshari A. Conventional maxillary denture versus maxillary implant‐supported overdenture opposing mandibular implant‐supported overdenture: Patient's satisfaction. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2024;10(1):813-819.

9. 9. Romeo E, Storelli S, Casano G, Scanferla M, Botticelli D. Six-mm versus 10-mm long implants in the rehabilitation of posterior edentulous jaws: a 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014;7(4):371-381.
10. 10. Von Wowern N, Gotfredsen K. Implant‐supported overdentures, a prevention of bone loss in edentulous mandibles? A 5‐year follow‐up study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001;12(1):19-25.
11. 11. Zhang Y, Luo J, Di P, et al. Screw‐retained ceramic‐veneered/monolithic zirconia partial implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses: A 5 to 10‐year retrospective study on survival and complications. J Prosthodont. 2024;33(3):221-230.
12. 12. Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco M, Vogel G. Long-term survival and success of oral implants in the treatment of full and partial arches: a 7-year prospective study with the ITI dental implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(2):247-259.
13. 13. Passia N, Wolfart S, Kern M. Ten-year clinical outcome of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures—A prospective pilot study. J Dent. 2019;82:63-65.
14. 14. Passia N, Kern M. The single midline implant in the edentulous mandible: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18:1719-1724.
15. 15. Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, et al. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients-the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J. 2009;207(4):185-186.
16. 16. Attard NJ, Wei X, Laporte A, Zarb GA, Ungar WJ. A cost minimization analysis of implant treatment in mandibular edentulous patients. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16(3):271-276.
17. 17. Müller F, Hernandez M, Grütter L, Aracil‐Kessler L, Weingart D, Schimmel M. Masseter muscle thickness, chewing efficiency and bite force in edentulous patients with fixed and removable implant‐supported prostheses: a cross‐sectional multicenter study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(2):144-150.
18. 18. 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.
19. 19. Beresford D, Klineberg I. A within-subject comparison of patient satisfaction and quality of life between a two-implant overdenture and a three-implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis in the mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33(6):1374-82.
20. 20. De Kok IJ, Chang KH, Lu TS, Cooper LF. Comparison of three-implant-supported fixed dentures and two-implant-retained overdentures in the edentulous mandible: a pilot study of treatment efficacy and patient satisfaction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26(2):415-426.
21. 21. Elsyad MA, Alameldeen HE, Elsaih EA. Four-Implant–Supported Fixed Prosthesis and Milled Bar Overdentures for Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Mandible: A 1-Year Randomized Controlled Clinical and Radiographic Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(6):1493-1503.
22. 22. Papaspyridakos P, Chen C-J, Chuang S-K, Weber H-P, Gallucci GO. A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(1):102-110.
23. 23. Lanzetti J, Crupi A, Gibello U, et al. How often should implant-supported full-arch dental prostheses be removed for supportive peri-implant care to maintain peri-implant health? A systematic review. Int J Oral Implantol. 2024;17(1):45-57.
24. 24. Papaspyridakos P, Barizan Bordin T, Kim YJ, et al. Implant survival rates and biologic complications with implant‐supported fixed complete dental prostheses: A retrospective study with up to 12‐year follow‐up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(8):881-893.
25. 25. Wittneben JG, Buser D, Salvi GE, Bürgin W, Hicklin S, Brägger U. Complication and failure rates with implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses and single crowns: A 10‐year retrospective study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(3):356-364.
26. 26. Awad M, Al‐Shamrany M, Locker D, Allen F, Feine J. Effect of reducing the number of items of the Oral Health Impact Profile on responsiveness, validity and reliability in edentulous populations. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2008;36(1):12-20.
27. 27. Feine J, Abou‐Ayash S, Al Mardini M, et al. Group 3 ITI consensus report: Patient‐reported outcome measures associated with implant dentistry. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:270-275.
28. 28. Liu D, Deng Y, Sha L, Abul Hashem M, Gai S. Impact of oral processing on texture attributes and taste perception. J Food Sci Technol. 2017;54:2585-2593.
29. 29. Manfredini M, Pellegrini M, Rigoni M, et al. Oral health-related quality of life in implant-supported rehabilitations: a prospective single-center observational cohort study. BMC Oral Health. 2024;24(1):1-10.
30. 30. Kecik Buyukhatipoglu I, Ozdemir M. Evaluation of Quality of Life and Satisfaction in Patients with Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Dentures. Cumhuriyet Dent J. 2024;27(1):15-20.
31. 31. Wittneben JG, Wismeijer D, Brägger U, Joda T, Abou‐Ayash S. Patient‐reported outcome measures focusing on aesthetics of implant‐and tooth‐supported fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Clini Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:224-240.
32. 32. Gallardo YR, Bohner L, Tortamano P, Pigozzo MN, Lagana DC, Sesma N. Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dentistry. 2018;119(2):214-219.
33. 33. Erdil D, Yildiz H, Bağiş N. Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction About Implant Therapy. Turkiye Klinikleri J Dent Sci. 2019;25(1):43-49.
34. 34. Yi SW, Carlsson G, Ericsson I, Kim CK. Patient evaluation of treatment with fixed implant‐supported partial dentures. J Oral Rehabil. 2001;28(11):998-1002.
35. 35. Papaspyridakos P, Bordin TB, Natto ZS, et al. Double full‐arch fixed implant‐supported prostheses: outcomes and complications after a mean follow‐up of 5 years. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(4):387-397.
36. 36. Mijiritsky E, Lorean A, Mazor Z, Levin L. Implant tooth‐supported removable partial denture with at least 15‐year long‐term follow‐up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(5):917-922.
37. 37. Snauwaert K, Duyck J, van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M, Naert I. Time dependent failure rate and marginal bone loss of implant supported prostheses: a 15-year follow-up study. Clin Oral Investig. 2000;4:13-20.
38. 38. Hanif A, Qureshi S, Sheikh Z, Rashid H. Complications in implant dentistry. Eur J Dent. 2017;11(1):135-140.
39. 39. Compagnoni MA, Gustavo Paleari A, Santana Rodriguez L, Giro G, Mendoza Marin DO, Pero AC. Impact of Replacing Conventional Complete Dentures with Implant-Supported Fixed Complete Dentures. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2014;34(6):833-839.
40. 40. Lang LA, Hansen SE, Olvera N, Teich S. A comparison of implant complications and failures between the maxilla and the mandible. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(4):611-617.
41. 41. Raikar S, Talukdar P, Kumari S, Panda SK, Oommen VM, Prasad A. Factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants: A retrospective study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2017;7(6):351-355.
42. 42. Vehemente VA, Chuang S-K, Daher S, Muftu A, Dodson TB. Risk factors affecting dental implant survival. J Oral Implantol. 2002;28(2):74-81.
43. 43. Millen C, Brägger U, Wittneben J-G. Influence of prosthesis type and retention mechanism on complications with fixed implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review applying multivariate analyses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(1):110-124.
44. 44. Papaspyridakos P, Bordin TB, Kim YJ, et al. Technical complications and prosthesis survival rates with implant‐supported fixed complete dental prostheses: a retrospective study with 1‐to 12‐year follow‐up. J Prosthodont. 2020;29(1):3-11.
45. 45. Karlsson K, Derks J, Håkansson J, et al. Technical complications following implant‐supported restorative therapy performed in Sweden. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(6):603-611.
46. 46. De Freitas R, de Carvalho Dias K, da Fonte Porto Carreiro A, Barbosa G, Ferreira M. Mandibular implant‐supported removable partial denture with distal extension: a systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2012;39(10):791-798.