Prospective clinical study of prosthetic treatment outcome of implant-retained- removable-partial-denture during 5 year-follow-ups
Mehran Bahrami, Mohammed Hussein Mahmood Alsharbaty
Abstract
Background
IRRPD offers patients the ability to upgrade their treatment planning to implant-supported-overdentures (ISOs) or implant-supported-fixed-prostheses (ISFPs) through insertion of more implants in the future after the loss of the remaining natural teeth.
Aims
The purpose of this prospective-clinical-study was to evaluate the success rate and treatment outcome of IRRPD for 15 patients, during at least 5-year-follow-ups after prosthetic rehabilitation with respect to implant mobility, peri-implant-marginal-bone-levels, and prosthetic complications.
Methods
15 successive patients were attended the Department of Implantology and Prosthodontics in TUMS, and received Implant-Retained-Removable-Partial-Dentures (IRRPDs). Two standard-size-dental-implants (Implantium/Dentium system, internal hexagon, Seoul, South Korea) were placed in distal-extension-areas for each patient. After the osseointegration period, all patients received IRRPDs using two Ball attachments. All the participated patients were followed-up at least for 5 years, and the survival rate of 30 implants was evaluated. The patients’ satisfaction of function, phonetics, and aesthetics was assessed by means of questionnaire.
Results
None of the studied patients reported any prosthetic complications during the follow-up-periods such as attachment loosening, metal housing loosening, or denture fracture. No implants failure was recorded, so that the cumulative-implant-survival rate was 100 per cent. The mean marginal-bone-resorption (MBR) around the two implants was 0.9mm with a range of 0.5–1.4mm. Teeth aesthetics was judged as excellent or very good by 86.7 per cent of the patients, while phonetics and mastication were considered excellent or very good by 66.7 per cent and 73.3 per cent of the patients, respectively.
Conclusion
15 patients received 30 implants for the fabrication of IRRPDs in the posterior-edentulous-sites. The IRRPDs were delivered to the patients by the same practitioner. After 5-year-follow-ups-schedule, this prospective-clinical-study supported the use of IRRPDs in the posterior region when the patients cannot afford more implants insertion for the construction of ISFPs.
Within the limitation of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The survival rate of all 30 implants was 100 per cent.
2. No prosthetic complications were occurred during 5-year-follow-ups-period.
3. IRRPDs treatment option should be encouraged to be used in the posterior-edentulous-sites as an alternative option to ISFPs.
4. IRRPDs can provide appropriate function, phonetics, and aesthetics.
Full Text:
IRRPD offers patients the ability to upgrade their treatment planning to implant-supported-overdentures (ISOs) or implant-supported-fixed-prostheses (ISFPs) through insertion of more implants in the future after the loss of the remaining natural teeth.
Aims
The purpose of this prospective-clinical-study was to evaluate the success rate and treatment outcome of IRRPD for 15 patients, during at least 5-year-follow-ups after prosthetic rehabilitation with respect to implant mobility, peri-implant-marginal-bone-levels, and prosthetic complications.
Methods
15 successive patients were attended the Department of Implantology and Prosthodontics in TUMS, and received Implant-Retained-Removable-Partial-Dentures (IRRPDs). Two standard-size-dental-implants (Implantium/Dentium system, internal hexagon, Seoul, South Korea) were placed in distal-extension-areas for each patient. After the osseointegration period, all patients received IRRPDs using two Ball attachments. All the participated patients were followed-up at least for 5 years, and the survival rate of 30 implants was evaluated. The patients’ satisfaction of function, phonetics, and aesthetics was assessed by means of questionnaire.
Results
None of the studied patients reported any prosthetic complications during the follow-up-periods such as attachment loosening, metal housing loosening, or denture fracture. No implants failure was recorded, so that the cumulative-implant-survival rate was 100 per cent. The mean marginal-bone-resorption (MBR) around the two implants was 0.9mm with a range of 0.5–1.4mm. Teeth aesthetics was judged as excellent or very good by 86.7 per cent of the patients, while phonetics and mastication were considered excellent or very good by 66.7 per cent and 73.3 per cent of the patients, respectively.
Conclusion
15 patients received 30 implants for the fabrication of IRRPDs in the posterior-edentulous-sites. The IRRPDs were delivered to the patients by the same practitioner. After 5-year-follow-ups-schedule, this prospective-clinical-study supported the use of IRRPDs in the posterior region when the patients cannot afford more implants insertion for the construction of ISFPs.
Within the limitation of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. The survival rate of all 30 implants was 100 per cent.
2. No prosthetic complications were occurred during 5-year-follow-ups-period.
3. IRRPDs treatment option should be encouraged to be used in the posterior-edentulous-sites as an alternative option to ISFPs.
4. IRRPDs can provide appropriate function, phonetics, and aesthetics.
PDF