CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Dental Implant Techniques and OutcomesDental materials and restorationsOrthopaedic implants and arthroplasty

Randomized controlled trial comparing immediate loading with conventional loading using cone-anchored implant-supported screw-retained removable prostheses: A 2-year follow-up clinical trial

Open access
Bernard, Lauren, Vercruyssen, Marjolein, Vanderveken, Julie, Coucke, Wim, Quirynen, Marc, Naert, Ignace·2019·The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
DOI 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.03.022
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Statement of problem Implant-based prosthetic solutions can be time consuming. If implants can be loaded immediately, treatment time can be reduced. Purpose The purpose of this prospective randomized controlled trial was to monitor the survival rate of Ankylos implants, comparing conventional with immediate loading by using abutments with the SynCone concept for screw-retained removable prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. Material and methods A total of 90 implants were placed in 15 study participants. The participants were randomly assigned to the immediate or conventional loading treatment group. Radiographic and clinical parameters were recorded at the time of permanent prosthesis installment and at 1- and 2-year follow-up examinations, and participants' satisfaction was measured by using questionnaires before and after prosthesis installation. A linear mixed model was used to measure differences. Results One implant in the conventional group was lost during abutment placement; hence, 89 implants could be followed for 2 years. Approximately 90% of these implants showed no bone loss or even bone gain at 1 and 2 years follow-up. Mean values for the immediate group were, respectively, 0.09 ±0.35 mm and 0.13 ±0.38 mm and 0.01 ±0.41 mm and -0.06 ±0.32 mm for the conventional method. No significant differences (P=.053) were found in bone level alterations between the groups. For all participants, the mean number of surfaces (4 per implant) with bleeding on probing (BoP) and plaque were 0.76 ±0.81 and 0.16 ±0.42 at 1 year follow-up and 0.44 ±0.66 and 0.02 ±0.15, respectively, at the second-year follow-up. The mean pocket probing depths were 2.05 ±0.54 mm at 1 year and 2.18 ±0.64 mm at 2 years. For both groups, a significant rise in satisfaction and quality of life was observed (P≤.001) at 1 and 2 years compared with pretreatment. Conclusions Ankylos implants placed in the edentulous maxilla, immediately or conventionally loaded by a detachable prosthesis, showed favorable bone-level preservation after 2 years of follow-up. No significant differences could be found between the immediate and conventional groups. A significant increase in quality of life was observed for both loading modes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.03.022

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Besimo C, Graber G. A new concept of overdentures with telescope crowns on osseointegrated implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1994;14: 486-95.
  2. Romanos GE. Surgical and prosthetic concepts for predictable immediate loading of oral implants. J Calif Dent Assoc 2004;32:991-1001.
  3. Yamada J, Kori H, Tsukiyama Y, Matsushita Y, Kamo M, Koyano K. Imme- diate loading of complete-arch fixed prostheses for edentulous maxillae after flapless guided implant placement: a 1-year prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:184-93.
  4. Pjetursson BE, Karoussis I, Bürgin W, Brägger U, Lang NP. Patients' satis- faction following implant therapy: a 10-year prospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:185-93.
  5. Mertens C, Steveling HG. Implant-supported fixed prostheses in the eden- tulous maxilla: 8-year prospective results. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22: 464-72.
  6. Morris HF, Ochi S, Rodriguez A, Lambert PM. AICRG, part IV: patient satisfaction reported for Ankylos implant prostheses. J Oral Implantol 2004;30:152-61.
  7. Slot W, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Huddleston Slater JJ, Meijer HJ. A systematic review of implant-supported maxillary overdentures after a mean observation period of at least 1 year. J Clin Periodontol 2010;37:98-110.
  8. Att W, Bernhart J, Strub JR. Fixed rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla: possibilities and clinical outcome. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:60-73.
  9. Eitner S, Schlegel A, Emeka N, Holst S, Will J, Hamel J. Comparing bar and double-crown attachments in implant-retained prosthetic reconstruction: a follow-up investigation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;19:530-7.
  10. Zou D, Wu Y, Huang W, Wang F, Wang S, Zhang Z, et al. A 3-year pro- spective clinical study of telescopic crown, bar, and locator attachments for removable four implant-supported maxillary overdentures. Int J Prosthodont 2013;26:566-73.
  11. Eccellente T, Piombino M, Piattelli A, Perrotti V, Iezzi G. A new treatment concept for immediate loading of implants inserted in the edentulous mandible. Quintessence Int 2010;41:489-95.
  12. Cepa S, Koller B, Wolkewitz M, Kohal R. Implant-retained prostheses: ball vs. conus attachments: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:177-85.
  13. Sidàk Z. Rectangular confidence region for the means of multivariate normal distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 1967;62:626-33.
  14. Zhang R-G, Hannak WB, Roggensack M, Freesmeyer WB. Retentive char- acteristics of Ankylos SynCone conical crown system over long-term use in vitro. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2008;16:61-6.
  15. Besimo C, Kempf B. In vitro investigation of various attachments for overdentures on osseointegrated implants. J Oral Rehabil 1995;22: 691-8.
  16. Eerdekens L, Schols M, Coelst L, Quirynen M, Naert IA. 5-year prospective study on cone-anchored implants in the edentulous maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:621-32.
  17. Lundqvist S, Haraldson T, Lindblad P. Speech in connection with maxillary fixed prostheses on osseointegrated implants: a three-year follow-up study. Clin Oral Implant Res 1992;3:176-80.
  18. Jacobs R, Manders E, Van Looy C, Lembrechts D, Naert I, van Steenberghe D. Evaluation of speech in patients rehabilitated with various oral implant-supported prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2001;12: 167-73.
  19. Van Lierde KM, Browaeys H, Corthals P, Matthys C, Mussche P, Van Kerckhove E, et al. Impact of fixed implant prosthetics using the "all-on-four" treatment concept on speech intelligibility, articulation and oromyofunctional behaviour. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;41:1550-7.
  20. Besimo C, Graber G, Schaffner T. Hybrid prosthesis implant-supported superstructures in edentulous jaw. 1. Case planning. ZWR 1991;100: 12-6.
  21. Mombelli A, Müller N, Cionca N. The epidemiology of peri-implantitis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:67-76.
  22. Wismeijer D, van Waas MA, Mulder J, Vermeeren JI, Kalk W. Clinical and radiological results of patients treated with three treatment modalities for overdentures on implants of the ITI dental implant system. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:297-306.
  23. Donovan R, Fetner A, Koutouzis T, Lundgren T. Crestal bone changes around implants with reduced abutment diameter placed non-submerged and at subcrestal positions: a 1-year radiographic evaluation. J Periodontol 2010;81:428-34.
  24. Romanos GE, May S, May D. Implant-supporting telescopic maxillary prostheses and immediate loading. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16: 412-8.
  25. Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Willings M, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. The effectiveness of immediate, early, and conventional loading of dental im- plants: a Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;22:893-904.
  26. Suarez F, Chan H-L, Monje A, Galindo-Moreno P, Wang H-L. Effect of the timing of restoration on implant marginal bone loss: a systematic review. J Periodontol 2013;84:159-69.
  27. Romanos GE, Nentwig GH. Immediate functional loading in the maxilla using implants with platform switching: five-year results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:1106-12.
  28. De Bruyn H, Raes S, Ostman P-O, Cosyn J. Immediate loading in partially and completely edentulous jaws: a review of the literature with clinical guidelines. Periodontol 2000;2014(66):153-87.
  29. Vercruyssen M, Cox C, Naert I, Jacobs R, Teughels W, Quirynen M. Accuracy and patient-centered outcome variables in guided implant surgery: a RCT comparing immediate with conventional loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:427-32.
  30. Weinberg MA, Hassan H. Bleeding on probing: what does it mean. Gen Dent 2012;60:271-8.
  31. Abràmoff MD, Magalhães PJ, Ram SJ. Image processing with imageJ. Bio- photonics Int 2004;11:36-41.
  32. Mcardle BF, Clarizio LF. An alternative method for restoring single-tooth implants. J Am Dent Assoc 2001;132:1269-73.
  33. Rocha S, Wagner W, Wiltfang J, Nicolau P, Moergel M, Messias A, et al. Effect of platform switching on crestal bone levels around implants in the posterior mandible: 3-years results from a multicentre randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2016;43:374-82.
  34. Jemt T. Fixed implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. A five- year follow-up report. Clin Oral Implant Res 1994;5:142-7.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bernard, L., Vercruyssen, M., Vanderveken, J., Coucke, W., Quirynen, M., & Naert, I.
Affiliations
  • Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
  • Institut Scientifique de Santé Publique (BE)
Corresponding author
Bernard, Lauren
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-02
Volume
121
Issue
2
Pages
258-264
ISSN
0022-3913 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.03.022
OpenAlex
W2885990193
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2021: 1
FWCI
0.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
OD
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Dental materials and restorations
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Orthopaedic implants and arthroplasty
Keywords
loading, immediate implant loading, edentulous maxilla, implant survival, peri-implant health, patient satisfaction, quality of life, treatment time reduction, implant-supported removable prosthesis, bone loss, bleeding on probing
MeSH terms
Dental Abutments, Aged, Bone Screws, Dental Implantation, Endosseous, Denture, Partial, Removable, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Maxilla, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported, Dental Restoration Failure, Immediate Dental Implant Loading

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review