Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Objectives: The objective of this study is to analyze the clinical and radiographic outcomes of implant-supported fixed protheses with cantilever extensions (ISFPCs) in the partially edentulous anterior mandible.
Materials And Methods: Patients who received anterior mandible implant restoration between January 2016 and December 2021 were included. Patients with two, three, or four continuous missing teeth receiving adjacent implant supported single-unit crowns (ISSCs), ISFPCs, implant-supported fixed protheses without cantilever extensions (ISFPNs) were divided into groups: ISSC+ISSC, ISFPC, ISSC+ISFPC, three-unit ISFPN, ISFPC+ISFPC, or four-unit ISFPN, respectively. We recorded and evaluated survival rates, mechanical and biological complications, peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL), esthetic outcomes, and patient perceptions. Statistical analysis was performed using linear mixed models (LMM).
Results: The study included 87 patients and 152 implants. No implant loss occurred during an average follow-up of 3.48 ± 1.85 years (range: 1-7 years). According to LMM models, prosthetic type had a statistically significant impact on MBL during follow-up periods, in favor of the ISFPC and ISFPC+ISFPC groups (0.16 ± 0.48 mm vs. 0.51 ± 0.49 mm, p = .034; 0.22 ± 0.49 mm vs. 0.60 ± 0.62 mm, p = .043, respectively). Mechanical and biological complications were relatively low and comparable. The four-unit ISFPC group had higher subjective esthetic scores compared with the ISSC+ISSC group (98.6 vs. 83.8, p < .05), and patients in the ISFPC+ISFPC group expressed greater satisfaction with cleanability than the ISFPN group (98.8 vs. 80.6).
Conclusion: ISFPCs offer a highly predictable treatment option in the anterior mandible, characterized by high survival rates, and comparable complication rates, peri-implant bone stability and esthetics to adjacent ISSCs or ISFPNs.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.14310 | DOI Listing |