The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Study between Two Adjacent Implants Supported Crowns and One Implant Supported Cantilever Fixed Dental Prosthesis: An In Vivo Study

Mohamed R Hussain, Mohamed M Shrif, Hesham I Othman, Hussain R Mohamed

Keywords : Crowns, Dental prosthesis, Framework, Implants, In vivo study

Citation Information : Hussain MR, Shrif MM, Othman HI, Mohamed HR. Comparative Study between Two Adjacent Implants Supported Crowns and One Implant Supported Cantilever Fixed Dental Prosthesis: An In Vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (10):983-991.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3771

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-01-2025

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To assess hard as well as soft peri-implant tissues within cases having two lost adjacent anterior teeth treated through placing either two implants with two separate crowns or only an implant along with a crown with a cantilever, and evaluating the effect of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) restoration on cantilever design up to 18 months after functional loading. Materials and methods: Twenty-seven participants (15 males and 12 females; mean age, 38.6 years; range 20–50 years) with missing two adjacent anterior teeth were treated with implant system (Flotecno implant system, Italy). In the first group (implant–implant metal ceramic group), we treated nine participants utilizing two adjacent implants with two separate single metal ceramic crowns. In the second group (implant–cantilever metal ceramic group), we treated nine participants by placing single implant with cantilever metal ceramic fixed dental prosthesis (FDP). In the third group (implant–cantilever PEEK group), we treated nine cases utilizing single implant with a cantilever PEEK FDP framework. Clinical and radiographic examinations were recorded. Marginal bone level, implant stability, and prosthetic complications were assessed during an 18-month follow-up period. Results: Marginal bone loss (MBL) exhibited similar measurements among all groups. The clinical outcomes did not address significant variance among all groups as regards implant stability within the period of follow-up. We also observed minor prosthetic complications. Participants were very satisfied within all groups. Conclusion: Based on the limitations of our research, utilizing cantilever extensions has no influence on MBL as well as implant stability. Clinical significance: Mean marginal bone level exhibited a significant rise from baseline to 18 months for all groups, however, still within the clinically accepted range. Regarding implant stability, no significant variance was observed among all groups for 18 months. The cantilever FDP design facilitated prosthesis fabrication among those having laterals of narrow diameters. Further research is required to investigate such a particular concern due to a limited sample size in our research.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Testori T, Weinstein T, Scutellà F, et al. Implant placement in the esthetic area: Criteria for positioning single and multiple implants. Periodontol 2000 2018;77:176−196. DOI: 10.1111/prd.12211.
  2. Jung RE, Heitz-Mayfield L, Schwarz F. Evidence-based knowledge on the aesthetics and maintenance of peri-implant soft tissues: Osteology Foundation Consensus Report Part 3—Aesthetics of peri-implant soft tissues. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:14−17. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13113.
  3. Roccuzzo M, Roccuzzo A, Ramanuskaite A. Papilla height in relation to the distance between bone crest and interproximal contact point at single-tooth implants: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:50−61. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13116.
  4. Spear F. Implants or pontics: Decision making for anterior tooth replacement. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140:1160−1166. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0345.
  5. Roccuzzo A, Jensen SS, Worsaae N, et al. Implant-supported 2-unit cantilevers compared with single crowns on adjacent implants: A comparative retrospective case series. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:717−723. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.04.024.
  6. Van Nimwegen WG, Raghoebar GM, Tymstra N, et al. How to treat two adjacent missing teeth with dental implants. A systematic review on single implant-supported two-unit cantilever FDP's and results of a 5-year prospective comparative study in the aesthetic zone. J Oral Rehabil 2017;44:461−471. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12507.
  7. Aglietta M, Siciliano VI, Zwahlen M, et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:441−451. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01706.x.
  8. Nedir R, Bischof M, Szmukler-Moncler S, et al. Prosthetic complications with dental implants: From an up-to-8-year experience in private practice. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:919−928. PMID: 17190302.
  9. Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, et al. Implant-supported fixed cantilever prostheses in partially edentulous arches. A seven-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:303−311. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.120905.x.
  10. Zurdo J, Romão C, Wennström JL. Survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed partial dentures with cantilevers: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:59−66. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01773.x.
  11. Stratton-Powell AA, Pasko KM, Brockett CL, et al. The biologic response to polyetheretherketone (PEEK) wear particles in total joint replacement: A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016;474:2394−2404. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-016-4976-z.
  12. Najeeb S, Zafar MS, Khurshid Z, et al. Applications of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in oral implantology and prosthodontics. J Prosthodont Res 2016;60:12−19. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2015.10.001.
  13. Tirachaimongkol C, Pothacharoen P, Reichart PA, et al. Relation between the stability of dental implants and two biological markers during the healing period: A prospective clinical study. Int J Implant Dent 2016;24:27−35. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-016-0058-y.
  14. Bahat O, Sullivan RM. Parameters for successful implant integration revisited part II: Algorithm for immediate loading diagnostic factors. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12:13−22. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00280.x.
  15. Ballantyne A, Eriksson S. Research ethics revised: The new CIOMS guidelines and the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki in context. Bioethics 2019;33:310−311. DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12581.
  16. Hämmerle CH, Glauser R. Clinical evaluation of dental implant treatment. Periodontol 2000 2004;34:230−239. DOI: 10.1046/j.0906-6713.2003.003434.x.
  17. Jemt T. Restoring the gingival contour by means of provisional resin crowns after single-implant treatment. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1999;19:20−29. PMID: 10379283.
  18. Tymstra N, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, et al. Dental implant treatment for two adjacent missing teeth in the maxillary aesthetic zone: A comparative pilot study and test of principle. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:207−213. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02017.x.
  19. Sampaio M, Buciumeanu M, Henriques B, et al. Comparison between PEEK and Ti6Al4V concerning micro-scale abrasion wear on dental applications. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2016;60:212−219. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2015.12.038.
  20. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, et al. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;16:387−416. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-9785(81)80077-4.
  21. Oh JS, Kim SG. Clinical study of the relationship between implant stability measurements using Periotest and Osstell mentor and bone quality assessment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 2012;113:35−40. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.07.003.
  22. Wennström J, Zurdo J, Karlsson S, et al. Bone level change at implant-supported fixed partial dentures with and without cantilever extension after 5 years in function. J Clin Periodontol 2004;31:1077−1083. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00603.x.
  23. Hälg GA, Schmid J, Hämmerle CH. Bone level changes at implants supporting crowns or fixed partial dentures with or without cantilevers. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008;190:983−990. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01556.x.
  24. Kim P, Ivanovski S, Latcham N, et al. The impact of cantilevers on biological and technical success outcomes of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. A retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:175−184. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12102.
  25. Romeo E, Storelli S. Systematic review of the survival rate and the biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of fixed dental prostheses with cantilevers on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean of 5 years follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:39−49. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02551.x.
  26. Wu M-J, Wang X-J, Zou L-D, Xu W-H, Zhang X-H. Evaluation of the therapeutic efficiency of mandibular anterior implant-supported fixed bridges with cantilevers. Chin Med J 2013;126:4665−4669. PMID: 24342308.
  27. Turkyilmaz I, McGlumphy EA. Influence of bone density on implant stability parameters and implant success: A retrospective clinical study. BMC Oral Health 2008;8:32. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-8-32.
  28. Taha A, Al-Shahat MA, Ghazy M. Clinical and radiographic evaluations of implant-supported cantilever fixed partial dentures replacing maxillary anterior teeth: A randomized clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:659−666. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.08.004.
  29. Rubo JH, Souza EA. Finite element analysis of stress in bone adjacent to dental implants. J Oral Implantol 2008;34:248−255. DOI: 10.1563/1548-1336(2008)34[249:FEAOSI]2.0.CO;2.
  30. Schulte J, Flores AM, Weed M. Crown-to-implant ratios of single tooth implant-supported restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98:1−5. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60031-6.
  31. Jung RE, Zembic A, Pjetursson BE, et al. Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:2−21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02547.x.
  32. Jensen-Louwerse C, Sikma H, Cune MS, et al. Single implant-supported two-unit cantilever fixed partial dentures in the posterior region: A retrospective case series with a mean follow-up of 6.5 years. Int J Implant Dent 2021;7:78−98. DOI: 10.1186/s40729-021-00361-8.
  33. Meijer HJA, Stellingsma K, Pol CWP, et al. Dental implant treatment for two adjacent missing teeth in the esthetic region: A systematic review and 10-year results of a prospective comparative pilot study. Clin Exp Dent Res 2023;20:954−968. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.773.
  34. Krishnan V, Tony Thomas C, Sabu I. Management of abutment screw loosening: Review of literature and report of a case. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2014;14:208−214. DOI: 10.1007/s13191-013-0330-2.
  35. Palmer RM, Howe LC, Palmer PJ, et al. A prospective clinical trial of single Astra Tech 4.0 or 5.0 diameter implants used to support two-unit cantilever bridges: Results after 3 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:35−40. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02160.x.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.