TY - JOUR

T1 - Implant-supported 2-unit cantilevers compared with single crowns on adjacent implants

T2 - a comparative retrospective case series

AU - Roccuzzo, Andrea

AU - Jensen, Simon Storgård

AU - Worsaae, Nils

AU - Gotfredsen, Klaus

N1 - Copyright © 2019 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The replacement of 2 adjacent missing teeth remains a clinical challenge. Among the different treatment options, the use of a single implant to support a 2-unit cantilever fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) has been proposed in situations of limited mesiodistal space, even though the evidence for its use is low.PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective comparative case series was to evaluate hard and soft peri-implant tissues in patients with 2 adjacent missing teeth in the anterior area (incisors or canines) rehabilitated with implant-supported 2-unit cantilevers or single crowns on adjacent implants.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-three from a cohort of 34 patients rehabilitated with 2-implant systems between September 2006 and November 2015 with 2-unit cantilever FDPs (test group) (n=16) or 2 adjacent dental implants supporting single crowns (control group) (n=7) were available for follow-up. At the baseline and follow-up examinations, the implant survival rate, peri-implant probing pocket depth, marginal bone level (MBL), as well as papilla scores and prosthetic outcomes from the Copenhagen Index Score were recorded and evaluated.RESULTS: One implant in the control group was lost during the observation period, leading to an overall implant survival rate of 97%. Mean peri-implant probing depths were low (≤5 mm) in both the groups. Stable marginal bone levels were detected around adjacent implants and around implants supporting cantilevers. Medium to high esthetic scores were obtained in most patients. Papilla index scores were high (score 1 and 2) in both the groups. Finally, no technical complications were recorded.CONCLUSIONS: The use of a single-implant-supported 2-unit cantilever FDP in anterior sites is a valid treatment option compared with 2 adjacent implants, especially when the available mesiodistal space is limited.

AB - STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The replacement of 2 adjacent missing teeth remains a clinical challenge. Among the different treatment options, the use of a single implant to support a 2-unit cantilever fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) has been proposed in situations of limited mesiodistal space, even though the evidence for its use is low.PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective comparative case series was to evaluate hard and soft peri-implant tissues in patients with 2 adjacent missing teeth in the anterior area (incisors or canines) rehabilitated with implant-supported 2-unit cantilevers or single crowns on adjacent implants.MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-three from a cohort of 34 patients rehabilitated with 2-implant systems between September 2006 and November 2015 with 2-unit cantilever FDPs (test group) (n=16) or 2 adjacent dental implants supporting single crowns (control group) (n=7) were available for follow-up. At the baseline and follow-up examinations, the implant survival rate, peri-implant probing pocket depth, marginal bone level (MBL), as well as papilla scores and prosthetic outcomes from the Copenhagen Index Score were recorded and evaluated.RESULTS: One implant in the control group was lost during the observation period, leading to an overall implant survival rate of 97%. Mean peri-implant probing depths were low (≤5 mm) in both the groups. Stable marginal bone levels were detected around adjacent implants and around implants supporting cantilevers. Medium to high esthetic scores were obtained in most patients. Papilla index scores were high (score 1 and 2) in both the groups. Finally, no technical complications were recorded.CONCLUSIONS: The use of a single-implant-supported 2-unit cantilever FDP in anterior sites is a valid treatment option compared with 2 adjacent implants, especially when the available mesiodistal space is limited.

U2 - 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.04.024

DO - 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.04.024

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 31443973

VL - 123

SP - 717

EP - 723

JO - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

JF - Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

SN - 0022-3913

IS - 5

ER -