Yufei Yang, Jiayu Gao, Yi Man, Xingmei Yang, Yingying Wu, Lin Xiang, Yili Qu
{"title":"种植体支撑的单冠上中牙悬臂对生物学和技术并发症的影响:回顾性研究。","authors":"Yufei Yang, Jiayu Gao, Yi Man, Xingmei Yang, Yingying Wu, Lin Xiang, Yili Qu","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To retrospectively evaluate the influence of mesiodistal intra-coronal cantilever width of implant-supported single crowns on the implant and restoration complication-free survival rate and the peri-implant soft and hard tissues.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 142 patients with 179 implants in the posterior region were evaluated. The implants were divided into three groups according to intra-coronal cantilever width (Group 1, ≤ 1 mm; Group 2, 1 mm intra-coronal cantilever width 2 mm; Group 3, ≥ 2 mm). Marginal bone loss, complications and clinical parameters were used to evaluate the influence of intra-coronal cantilever width on implant-supported single crowns.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group 1 included 95 implants, Group 2 was composed of 27 implants and Group 3 comprised 57 implants. A univariate Cox proportional hazards model, assessing implant complication-free survival, indicated a higher complication rate for Group 3 compared to Group 1 (P = 0.009). Furthermore, the marginal bone loss on the cantilever side over the short-term and medium- to long-term follow-up period indicated that intra-coronal cantilever width ≥ 2 mm may be considered a risk factor. From a clinical perspective, compared with Group 3, Groups 1 and 2 exhibited lower incidence rates of bleeding on probing during the medium- to long-term follow-up period (P = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite its limitations, the present study shows that posterior single implant crowns with mesiodistal intra-coronal cantilevers equal to or higher than 2 mm will present greater marginal bone loss, complications and tissue inflammation.</p>","PeriodicalId":73463,"journal":{"name":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","volume":"17 4","pages":"383-400"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of the mesiodistal cantilever on implant-supported single crowns on biological and technical complications: A retrospective study.\",\"authors\":\"Yufei Yang, Jiayu Gao, Yi Man, Xingmei Yang, Yingying Wu, Lin Xiang, Yili Qu\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To retrospectively evaluate the influence of mesiodistal intra-coronal cantilever width of implant-supported single crowns on the implant and restoration complication-free survival rate and the peri-implant soft and hard tissues.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 142 patients with 179 implants in the posterior region were evaluated. The implants were divided into three groups according to intra-coronal cantilever width (Group 1, ≤ 1 mm; Group 2, 1 mm intra-coronal cantilever width 2 mm; Group 3, ≥ 2 mm). Marginal bone loss, complications and clinical parameters were used to evaluate the influence of intra-coronal cantilever width on implant-supported single crowns.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Group 1 included 95 implants, Group 2 was composed of 27 implants and Group 3 comprised 57 implants. A univariate Cox proportional hazards model, assessing implant complication-free survival, indicated a higher complication rate for Group 3 compared to Group 1 (P = 0.009). Furthermore, the marginal bone loss on the cantilever side over the short-term and medium- to long-term follow-up period indicated that intra-coronal cantilever width ≥ 2 mm may be considered a risk factor. From a clinical perspective, compared with Group 3, Groups 1 and 2 exhibited lower incidence rates of bleeding on probing during the medium- to long-term follow-up period (P = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite its limitations, the present study shows that posterior single implant crowns with mesiodistal intra-coronal cantilevers equal to or higher than 2 mm will present greater marginal bone loss, complications and tissue inflammation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)\",\"volume\":\"17 4\",\"pages\":\"383-400\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effect of the mesiodistal cantilever on implant-supported single crowns on biological and technical complications: A retrospective study.
Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the influence of mesiodistal intra-coronal cantilever width of implant-supported single crowns on the implant and restoration complication-free survival rate and the peri-implant soft and hard tissues.
Materials and methods: A total of 142 patients with 179 implants in the posterior region were evaluated. The implants were divided into three groups according to intra-coronal cantilever width (Group 1, ≤ 1 mm; Group 2, 1 mm intra-coronal cantilever width 2 mm; Group 3, ≥ 2 mm). Marginal bone loss, complications and clinical parameters were used to evaluate the influence of intra-coronal cantilever width on implant-supported single crowns.
Results: Group 1 included 95 implants, Group 2 was composed of 27 implants and Group 3 comprised 57 implants. A univariate Cox proportional hazards model, assessing implant complication-free survival, indicated a higher complication rate for Group 3 compared to Group 1 (P = 0.009). Furthermore, the marginal bone loss on the cantilever side over the short-term and medium- to long-term follow-up period indicated that intra-coronal cantilever width ≥ 2 mm may be considered a risk factor. From a clinical perspective, compared with Group 3, Groups 1 and 2 exhibited lower incidence rates of bleeding on probing during the medium- to long-term follow-up period (P = 0.003).
Conclusions: Despite its limitations, the present study shows that posterior single implant crowns with mesiodistal intra-coronal cantilevers equal to or higher than 2 mm will present greater marginal bone loss, complications and tissue inflammation.