Elsevier

Journal of Dentistry

Volume 35, Issue 10, October 2007, Pages 768-772
Journal of Dentistry

Review
Implants for life? A critical review of implant-supported restorations

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.07.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Aim

This review critically appraises the literature on implant-supported restorations.

Method

The review was conducted in March 2007 using OVID Medline with the search terms, limited to the English Language, of implant, crown, bridge, fixed and removable partial dentures and complete dentures. From a total of 5135 papers combining implants and implant-supported restorations only 131 were found, after a thorough hand search, to be relevant to the restoration of implants.

Results

The outcome of implant fixtures have consistently been shown to be successful over the long-term. However, the same focus of research into the restorations used to support implants has not. Where research is available to guide clinicians towards a particular technique the rigour of the research is limited.

Conclusion

More emphasis by the research community on the outcome of restorations supported by implants is needed.

Introduction

The success of implants is widely proclaimed in the literature and by dentists when discussing outcome with their patients. Patients and dentists perceptions of implants are trouble free tooth replacements but does the literature support this? Whilst implant fixtures have a good record of success and longevity, the restorations used to replace teeth can develop problems which are often overlooked and underestimated. This clinically based article reviews the literature on implant-supported restorations and appraises current techniques. It is not aimed to be a comprehensive and will briefly review and critically appraise the longevity of other fixed restorations used to replace teeth.

Considering the time implants have been available as an option for tooth replacements there have been surprisingly little research on the restoration of the implant fixture. In an OVID database search conducted in March 2007 using the search phrases listed in Table 1 a total of 131 references specifically related to prosthodontic applications for implants were found. By comparison that for composites and materials testing revealed 3771.

Section snippets

Implant fixtures

Ever since Brånemark et al. proposed that implants could reliably integrate with bone both manufacturer's and dentists have attempted to push the frontiers of development.2, 3, 4, 5 But a closer look at Brånemark's work shows the meticulous scientific methodology which has rarely been repeated in dental clinical research. Few researchers have the patience and confidence to publish a new clinical technique with longevity data approaching 10 years. What was so unique about Brånemark's work was

Longevity of implant-supported and other restorations

The options for tooth replacement have traditionally been tooth-supported restorations. Since the introduction of implants the role of the conventional bridge has been somewhat questioned. However, recently a series of papers systematically reviewed the longevity and success of fixed–fixed and simple cantilever designed conventional bridges. Tan et al.9 reported that the median survival of conventional bridges after 10 years was 89.1% (95% confidence interval between 81% and 93.8%). The most

Comparison of implant-supported to conventional restorations

An interesting study by Walton and MacEntee.21 reported the outcome of a questionnaire based study which investigated the perceived barriers to implants. Surprisingly, 36% out of a sample of 101 elderly Canadians refused free implants. The most commonly quoted reason for refusal was fear of surgery. The most common reasons quoted by those choosing free implants were those concerned with poor chewing function, poor speech and dissatisfaction with their appearance. This relatively small study

Overdentures

There is comparatively little published research to guide practitioners on how the design of abutments influences outcome of the restoration. In a study by Nedir et al.29 236 patients were treated with 538 implants over an 8 years study. Subjects received 55 implant-supported overdentures and 265 implant-supported bridges with an overall success of 99.2% for the fixtures, however, 66% of the removable and 13% of the fixed prostheses development complications. The authors reported no differences

Conclusion

The introduction of implants revolutionised prosthodontics. The expansion of the commercial world and the business of dentistry have to some extent drawn away from the meticulous research principles developed by Brånemark. However, whilst research continues to be proactive for fixtures the same cannot be said for their prosthodontic rehabilitation. There is comparatively little research to guide practitioners on how to restore implants. Considering the vast numbers of implant systems and

References (38)

  • P.I. Branemark et al.

    Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies

    Scandanvian Journal of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Supplement

    (1969)
  • I.K. Karoussis et al.

    Effect of implant design on survival and success rates of titanium oral implants: a 10-year prospective cohort study of the ITI dental implant system

    Clinical Oral Implant Research

    (2004)
  • I. Naert et al.

    Biologic outcome of single-implant restorations as tooth replacements: a long-term follow-up study

    Clinical Implant Dental Related Research

    (2000)
  • O. Bahat

    Branemark system implants in the posterior maxilla: clinical study of 660 implants followed for 5–12 years

    International Journal of Oral Maxillofacial Implants

    (2000)
  • K. Tan et al.

    A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years

    Clinical Oral Implant Research

    (2004)
  • P.J. Leempoel et al.

    The survival rate of bridges. A study of 1674 bridges in 40 Dutch general practices

    Journal of Oral Rehabilitation

    (1995)
  • T.R. Walton

    A 10-year longitudinal study of fixed prosthodontics: clinical characteristics and outcome of single-unit metal-ceramic crowns

    International Journal of Prosthodontics

    (1999)
  • J. Valderhaug

    A 15-year clinical evaluation of fixed prosthodontics

    Acta Odontoligica Scandavanica

    (1991)
  • B.E. Pjetursson et al.

    A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of fixed partial dentures (FPDs) after an observation period of at least 5 years

    Clinical Oral Implant Research

    (2004)
  • Cited by (19)

    • The current considerations in the fabrication of implant prostheses and the state of prosthetic complications: A survey among the dental technicians

      2018, Saudi Dental Journal
      Citation Excerpt :

      In the present scenario, the success of implants is an important landmark for dentists when reviewing the treatment outcome with patients. Literature search shows that there has been an increase in demand for dental implants, which is the core of dentistry in the 21st century (Bartlett, 2007; Taylor et al., 2005; Kawazoe, 2009). When planning prosthetic rehabilitation, implant supported FDP or implant-supported single crown (SC) followed by conventional end-abutment tooth-supported fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) are the first treatment options.

    • Probability of survival of implant-supported metal ceramic and CAD/CAM resin nanoceramic crowns

      2015, Dental Materials
      Citation Excerpt :

      Since osseointegration of dental implants is a predictable treatment modality, there is a demand for comprehensive understanding of the main complications of prosthetic designs eventually affecting success rates [1,2].

    • Gingival retraction techniques for implants versus teeth Current status

      2008, Journal of the American Dental Association
      Citation Excerpt :

      Although injectable matrices are promising as a gingival retraction technique for implant situations, further development is needed. Compared with research on implant fixtures, there is relatively little research to guide clinicians regarding how to restore implants59 and about which gingival retraction techniques to use around implant abutments. In the meantime, the use of techniques developed by clinicians for natural teeth will continue.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    The main findings in the manuscript were presented at the annual meeting of the British Society for Restorative Dentistry in Brighton 2007.

    View full text