STATUS OF THE PROSTHESES CARE OF FULL-ARCH DENTAL IMPLANT REHABILITATION ON PATIENTS RECEIVED ALL ON X IMPLANTS AT THE SCHOOL OF ODONTO - STOMATOLOGY IN THE PERIOD 2018 - 2022
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to (1) Evaluate the current status of full arch dental implants treatment in patients who have implanted All on X at the Institute of Dental, Maxillofacial and Facial Training in 2018 - 2022. (2) Analyze the relationship between the knowledge, behavior and the results of the full arch dental implants treatment of these patients. Subjects and methods: A study was conducted on patients who had lost all tooth, then were implanted All on X and restored according to type FP3. A total of 31 patients participated in the study with 37 full arch dental implants and over 177 implants. Research results show that: the majority of the study subjects are men (71.0%); female accounts for only 29.0%. The mean age of these subjects was 61.32±10.53 years old, with the youngest age being 27, the oldest being 71. The rate of occurrence of peri-implant mucositis was 87.1% at patient level, 31.1% at implant level.The rate of spontaneous bleeding around the implant was 22.1% at patient level, 5.1% at implant level and no patient had a pathological pocket. The patients with good score of prosthetic care only accounted for 9.7%, while the patients with low score of prosthetic care accounted for 90.3%. Conclusion: There is a relationship between poor care practice and inflammation of the peri-implant mucositis (OR = 3.44 and p = 0.047). The risk of peri-implantation mucositis in the group of patients with poor care practice was higher than the group of patients with good care practice. There is a relationship between the care practice and the restorative residue (p < 0.05), the mean value of restorative residue in the poor care practice group is higher than the good care practice group.
Article Details
Keywords
Full-arch prostheses, Implanl All on
References
2. Lobene RR, Weatherford T, Ross NM, Lamm RA, Menaker LA. A modified gingival index for use in clinical trials. Clin Prev Dent. 1986;8(1):3-6.
3. Samer Abi Nader, Hazem Eimar, Moath Momani, Ke Shang, Nach G. Daniel, Faleh Tamimi. Plaque Accumulation Beneath Maxillary All-on-4™ Implant-Supported Prostheses. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 2015 Oct;17(5):932-7.
4. Simone Kreve, Geraldo Alberto, Pinheiro De Carvalho, Elimario Venturin Ramos, Sério Candido Dias. Clinical Evaluation of Hygiene Maintenance of Full-arch Implant-supported Prostheses. Journal of International Oral Health 2016; 8(9):903-910
5. Stefan Krennmair, Michael Malek, Thomas Forstner, Gerald Krennmair, Michael Stimmelmayr, Stefan Hunger. Immediately loaded implants simultaneously placed in fresh extraction and healed sites supporting four-implant-supported fixed mandibular prostheses using the all-on-4 concept: A 5-year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2022 Feb;33(2):158-171
6. S Corbella, M Del Fabbro, S Taschieri, F De Siena, L Francetti. Clinical evaluation of an implant maintenance protocol for the prevention of peri-implant diseases in patients treated with immediately loaded full-arch rehabilitations. Int J Dent Hyg 2011 Aug;9(3):216-22
7. Sahar Ahmed Kortam, Moustafa Abdou ELsyad, Sally Sayed Awad, Nahla ElDin ElHelbawy. Metal-Ceramic and Polyether Ether Ketone-Composite Maxillary Fixed Prosthesis Supported by Four Implants and Opposed by Removable Distal Extension Partial Dentures: A Comparative Study of Clinical and Prosthetic Outcomes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2022 Jan-Feb;37(1):181-189