We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Journal of Oral Implantology



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 7 (2014), No. 2     24. June 2014
Int J Oral Implantol (Berl) 7 (2014), No. 2  (24.06.2014)

Page 173-184, PubMed:24977253

Immediately loaded distally cantilevered fixed mandibular prostheses supported by four implants placed in both in fresh extraction and healed sites: 2-year results from a prospective study
Krennmair, Stefan / Seemann, Rudolf / Weinländer, Michael / Krennmair, Gerald / Piehslinger, Eva
Objectives: To evaluate the outcome of immediately loaded distally cantilevered mandibular full-arch prostheses according to the 'all-on-four' concept supported by implants placed in both fresh extraction and healed sites.
Material and methods: A prospective study was conducted in 24 patients with extraction of all remaining mandibular teeth and placement of 4 implants per patient (2 mesial axial and 2 distal tilted) for full-arch mandibular restorations. Implants were inserted in fresh extraction sockets 2.3 ± 1.0 per patient and 1.7 ± 1.0 implants in healed sites. Implants placed in fresh extraction sites (n = 55) were significantly (P <0.01) more deeply inserted than implants (n = 41) placed in healed sites (peri-implant alveolar crest: +1.6 ± 0.8 mm vs +0.6 ± 0.7 mm). Patients received an immediate provisional fixed dental prosthesis and, 3 months later, a definite resin veneered prosthesis with metal framework. At the 12-and 24-month follow-up, patients were evaluated for implants and prosthesis success, for prosthodontic maintenance efforts and patient satisfaction. At both follow-up examinations, peri-implant marginal bone level, implant pocket depth, plaque, bleeding, gingival and calculus indices were evaluated and compared between implants placed in fresh extraction and healed sites.
Results: At the 24-month follow-up, no implant failed and all prostheses were stable. There were five fractures of the provisional prosthesis in 5 patients but no fracture of the definite prostheses. For the definite prostheses, 15 acrylic teeth had to be renewed/repaired (in 10 patients) and 18 patients presented the need for the implant-supported prosthesis to be rebased. Peri-implant marginal bone level after 12 and 24 months was -0.18 ± 0.20 mm and -0.40 ± 0.29 mm for all implants (P <0.001) representing bone level differences of 0.35 mm between implants placed in healed and post-extractive sites at both the 1st year (95%-CI:-0.49 to -0.20) and the 2nd year (95%-CI: -0.57 to -0.14) assessment. Plaque (1st year: 1.17 ± 0.48 versus 0.5 ± 0.6; P <0.001; 2nd year: 1.21 ± 0.51 versus 0.55 ± 0.6; P <0.001) and calculus indices (1st year: 0.92 ± 0.28 versus 0.45 ± 0.51; P <0.001; 2nd year: 1.00 ± 0.42 versus 0.5 ± 0.51; P <0.001) were significantly higher for implants placed in fresh extraction than in healed sites. Patients' subjective satisfaction score rating assessed by 5 items was high at the 1- (score: 4.6 ± 0.4) and 2-year evaluation (score: 4.7 ± 0.36).
Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, immediately loaded full-arch prostheses can be supported by four implants placed simultaneously into healed and fresh extraction sites.

Conflict of interest statement: Prof Gerald Krennmair was supported by a grant from Camlog Foundation to conduct this research.

Keywords: edentulous mandible, extraction sites, fixed full arch prostheses, immediate implant placement, immediate loading