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

Phú Thắng Nguyễn1, Thị Duyên Hoàng1,, Ngọc Trâm Đàm1, Thị Mỹ Hạnh Trần1
1 HMU

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

References

1. Mombelli A, Lang NP. Clinical parameters for the evaluation of dental implants. Periodontology. 2000;4(1994):81-84.
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