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
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Implantol 12 (2019), No. 1     11. Mar. 2019
Int J Oral Implantol 12 (2019), No. 1  (11.03.2019)

Page 105-113


Five-year prospective study on conometric retention for complete fixed prostheses
Bressan, Eriberto / Sbricoli, Luca / Guazzo, Riccardo / Bambace, Marco / Lops, Diego / Tomasi, Cristiano
Purpose: To evaluate the reliability of a conometric system for fixed retention of complete prostheses (CPs) on four implants after 5 years of function.
Materials and methods: Twenty-five patients with a completely edentulous mandible received four implants supporting a CP. A total of 100 implants were immediately loaded with CPs on conometric abutments. A follow-up of 5 years was observed for each patient. Outcome measures were prosthesis and implant success, complications, probing pocket depth changes, marginal bleeding and plaque changes, and patient satisfaction.
Results: One patient dropped-out. In total, 96 implants supporting the 24 CPs completed the follow-up examination at 5 years. No implant failed. Two framework fractures occurred after 4 and 5 years of function. No loss of retention was recorded for the CPs. Mucositis was recorded for two implants after 1 year of prostheses function for two patients, for one implant after 3 years and for two implants after 4 years in different patients and successfully treated with interceptive supportive therapy. No significant differences were found between Plaque Index (PI) at baseline and after 2 years (P = 1.0); similar findings were calculated between PI at baseline and after 5 years (P = 0.6) of function. At baseline, after 2 and after 5 years, respectively, 69%, 64% and 56% of implants showed a PI of 0; 31%, 36% and 44% of implants showed a PI between 1 and 3. Modify Bleeding Index (MBI) was not significantly different both between baseline and after 2 years of function (P = 1.0) and between baseline and 5 years of function (P = 0.5). At baseline, after 2 and after 5 years, respectively, 69%, 65% and 61% of implants showed a MBI of 0; 27%, 28% and 29% of implants showed a MBI of 1; and 4%, 7% and 10% of implants showed a MBI of 2. The mean probing pocket depth was 1.2 ± 0.4 mm at baseline, 1.2 ± 0.4 mm after 2 years and 1.4 ± 0.5 mm after 5 years of function. The differences were not statistically significant between baseline and 2 years (P = 1.0) and between baseline and 5 years (P = 0.1). From the patient satisfaction questionnaire, 85% percent of patients were satisfied from both aesthetic and functional points of view after 5 years of conometric prostheses function.
Conclusions: The present implant-supported conometric retention system can be used to give fixed retention to a CP supported by four implants. An adequate metal framework should be provided to the definitive restoration in order to avoid fractures in the long term.

Conflict of interest statement: No conflict of interest was declared by authors in the present study design and clinical application. No donation of free materials, prostheses or any other support was provided.

Keywords: conometric retention, dental implants, edentulous mandible, fixed prosthesis