Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Cristina Romao
Jan L. Wennstrom
Authors affiliations:
Jose Zurdo, Cristina Romao, Institute for
Postgraduate Dental Education, University of
Central Lancashire, UK
Jan L. Wennstrom, Department of Periodontology,
Institute of Odontology, The Sahlgrenska Academy
at University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Key words: cantilever extensions, complications, fixed partial dental prosthesis, implantsupported, survival, systematic review
Abstract
Objective: The objective of the present systematic review was to analyze the potential
effect of incorporation of cantilever extensions on the survival rate of implant-supported
Correspondence to:
Jose Zurdo
Institute for Postgraduate Dental Education
Greenbank Building, Room 304
University of Central Lancashire
Preston PR1 2HE
UK
Tel.: 44 116 270 87 52
Fax: 44 116 270 0664
e-mail: jose.zurdo@btopenworld.com
fixed partial dental prostheses (FPDPs) and the incidence of technical and biological
complications, as reported in longitudinal studies with at least 5 years of follow-up.
Methods: A MEDLINE search was conducted up to and including November 2008 for
longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up period of at least 5 years. Two reviewers
performed screening and data abstraction independently. Prosthesis-based data on survival/
failure rate, technical complications (prosthesis-related problems, implant loss) and
biological complications (marginal bone loss) were analyzed.
Results: The search provided 103 titles with abstract. Full-text analysis was performed of 12
Conflicts of interest:
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
articles, out of which three were finally included. Two of the studies had a prospective or
retrospective casecontrol design, whereas the third was a prospective cohort study. The 5year survival rate of cantilever FPDPs varied between 89.9% and 92.7% (weighted mean
91.9%), with implant fracture as the main cause for failures. The corresponding survival rate
for FPDPs without cantilever extensions was 96.396.2% (weighted mean 95.8%).
Technical complications related to the supra-constructions in the three included studies
were reported to occur at a frequency of 1326% (weighted mean 20.3%) for cantilever
FPDPs compared with 012% (9.7%) for non-cantilever FPDPs. The most common
complications were minor porcelain fractures and bridge-screw loosening.
For cantilever FPDPs, the 5-year event-free survival rate varied between 66.7% and 79.2%
(weighted mean 71.7%) and between 83.1% and 96.3% (weighted mean 85.9%) for noncantilever FPDPs.
No statistically significant differences were reported with regard to peri-implant bone-level
change between the two prosthetic groups, either at the prosthesis or at the implant level.
Conclusion: Data on implant-supported FPDPs with cantilever extensions are limited and
therefore survival and complication rates should be interpreted with caution. The
incorporation of cantilevers into implant-borne prostheses may be associated with a higher
incidence of minor technical complications.
Date:
Accepted 20 May 2009
To cite this article:
Zurdo J, Romao C, Wennstrom JL. Survival and
complication rates of implant-supported fixed partial
dentures with cantilevers: a systematic review.
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 20 (Suppl. 4), 2009; 5966.
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01773.x
c 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S
option in situations where local conditions of the residual edentulous ridge preclude the possibility to place an implant.
However, it has been claimed that cantilever extensions increase the risk of bending
59
Zurdo et al Survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed partial dentures with cantilevers
overload and that this in turn may compromise the prognosis of the prosthetic
rehabilitation (Rangert et al. 1995). In a
series of recent systematic reviews, the
information available in the literature on
the success/survival rates and the incidence of biological and technical complications of different designs of tooth and
implant-supported fixed prosthesis was
summarized (Lang et al. 2004; Pjetursson
et al. 2004a, 2004b, 2007; Tan et al. 2004;
Jung et al. 2008; Pjetursson & Lang 2008).
These reviews revealed that the incidence
of technical complications was significantly higher for implant-supported than
for tooth-supported prostheses. For toothsupported prostheses, technical complications were found to be more frequent for
cantilever than for end-abutment prostheses. However, the extent to which cantilevers may affect the survival and
complication rates of implant-supported
fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) was not
analyzed in these reviews.
Long-term clinical studies have demonstrated that implant-supported full-arch reconstructions with bilateral cantilevers in
the mandible exhibited high survival rates
(Adell et al. 1981, 1990; Albrektsson et al.
1988). However, it has been suggested that
certain cantilever lengths may decrease the
survival of the prostheses (Shackleton et al.
1994). There are inherent biomechanical
differences in the implant treatment of
completely edentulous arches and posterior
partially edentulous segments, as the partial prosthesis does not benefit from crossarch stabilization and, therefore, is more
susceptible to bending loads (Rangert et al.
1997).
In vitro studies revealed that implantsupported cantilever prostheses lead to a
high stress concentration at the marginal
bone level of the implants, particularly at
the implant closest to the cantilever extension (Sertgoz & Guvener 1996; Stegaroiu et
al. 1998; Zampelis et al. 2007), which was
considered to pose a risk for marginal bone
loss at the implants. On the other hand,
experimental studies in the dog model
showed that excessive static loading of
implants did not result in marginal bone
loss or loss of osseointegration, but that the
bone tissue adjacent to the loaded implants
exhibited a greater density compared with
unloaded implants (Gotfredsen et al.
2001a, 2001b). Implant loss as a result of
60 |
Inclusion criteria
Systematic reviews and longitudinal prospective/retrospective studies (RCT, controlled clinical trials and cohort studies)
reporting data with regard to the outcome
of treatment with implant-supported
FPDPs with cantilever extensions after a
mean function time of at least 5 years were
accepted for inclusion. The selection of a
function time of at least 5 years was based
on the consensus from a previous workshop regarding the recommended follow-up
time for evaluation of implant therapy
(Wennstrom & Palmer 1999). Further, the
Zurdo et al Survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed partial dentures with cantilevers
Studies in which data on a certain variable were lacking or could not be calculated
were scored as not reported for the variable in question. Weighted mean values
and the 95% confidence interval (CI) for
the various outcomes were calculated.
Excluded 9 articles
Results
The literature search confirmed the inexistence of publications on RCT comparing
the outcomes of implant-supported FPDPs
with and without cantilever extensions.
Fig. 1. Process of identifying the studies included in the review, from an initial 103 titles/abstracts.
Table 1. Excluded articles (cohort studies) after full-text examination and reasons for
exclusion
Reference
61 |
The study characteristics of the three publications that qualified for inclusion
(Wennstrom et al. 2004; Kreissl et al.
2007; Halg et al. 2008) are presented in
Table 2. Two of the studies had a prospective or a retrospective casecontrol design,
whereas the third was a prospective cohort
study. In one study (Wennstrom et al. 2004)
all included patients had a 5-year follow-up,
whereas in the other two studies the followup time among the patients ranged between
0 and 12.7 years, with a reported mean
follow-up time of 55.3 years.
The implant systems used in the studies
were ITI (Straumann AG, Waldenburg,
Switzerland, one study), Astra (Astra
Tech AB, Molndal, Sweden, one study)
and 3i (Implant Innovation Inc., West
Palm Beach, FL, USA, one study).
Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 20 (Suppl. 4), 2009 / 5966
Zurdo et al Survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed partial dentures with cantilevers
Type of
study
Casecontrol studies
Halg et al.
Retrospective 54
(2008)
Wennstrom Prospective
et al. (2004)
Cohort studies
Kreissl et al. Prospective
(2007)
Cantilever
Mean
extension
number of
implants
in prosthesis
Mean length
of implants
(range)
Type of
Comments
antagonists
ITI
Mean 5.3
years
(312.7)
Cant: 27
Non-C: 27
Cant: 1.7
Non-C: 1.2
10.1 mm
(612)
Teeth or
1 crown
FPDPs
unit
(26 prostheses) on teeth
2 crown units
(1 prosthesis)
45
Astra
Tech
5 years
Cant: 24
Non-C: 26
Cant: 2.6
Non-C: 2.8
12.7 mm
(819 mm)
Mean 9 mm
Teeth or
FPDPs
on teeth
except 1
(implantsupported
FPDP)
76
3i
Mean 5
years
(080
months)
Cant: 23
Non-C: 89
Cant: 2.7
Non-C: 1.6
NR
NR
NR
Cant: 8
of 27 patients
with single
implant
Non-C: 22
of 27
patients
with single
implant
Non-C: 46 of
89 patients
with single
implant
NR, not reported; Cant, cantilever FPDP; Non-C, non-cantilever FPDP; FPDP, fixed partial dental prostheses.
62 |
Zurdo et al Survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed partial dentures with cantilevers
Casecontrol studies
Halg et al. Cant: 3
(2008)
(11.1%)
Non-C: 1
(3.7%)
Cant: 2
(4.3%)
Non-C: 1
(3.1%)
Cant: 6
(22%)
Non-C: 0
(0%)
Cant: 0.23
Non-C: 0.09
Cant: 0.23
Non-C: 0.05
Wennstrom Cant: 2
et al.
(8.3%)
(2004)
Non-C: 1
(3.8%)
Cant: 2
(3.2%)
Non-C: 1
(1.4%)
Cant: 3
(13%)
Non-C: 3
(12%)
Cant: 0.49
Non-C: 0.38
Cant : 0.39
Non-C: 0.23
Cohort studies
Kreissl
Cant: 1
et al.
(4.3%)
(2007)
Non-C: 4
(4.5%)
Cant: 1
(1.6%)
Non-C: 4
(2.8%)
Cant: 6
(26%)
Non-C: 11
(12%)
NR
NR
Cant: 2.9%
(1.44.5)
Non-C: 2.4%
(1.43.5)
Cant: 20.3%
(12.827.9)
Non-C: 9.7%
(1.917.6)
Cant: 0.35
(0.10.6)
Non-C: 0.23
( 0.10.6)
Cant: 0.31
(0.10.5)
Non-C: 0.14
(00.3)
Weighted
mean
(95% CI)
Cant: 8.1%
(4.212)
Non-C: 4.2%
(3.74.7)
Comments
NR, not reported; Cant, cantilever FPDP; Non-C, non-cantilever FPDP; FPDP, fixed partial dental prostheses.
63 |
Zurdo et al Survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed partial dentures with cantilevers
Discussion
In the present systematic review, the incidence of loss and technical and biological
complications of FDPs with cantilever extensions were described. To address the
focus question to what extent do cantilevers affect survival and complications of
implant borne reconstructions in partially
edentulous patients, the approach in the
search was to identify longitudinal studies,
prospective or retrospective, with at least
5 years of follow-up and reporting prosthesis-based data. It is generally acknowledged
that longitudinal studies with a time span
of at least 5 years are required to properly
evaluate the outcome of implant treatment
(Wennstrom & Palmer 1999; Berglundh
et al. 2002; Pjetursson et al. 2004a).
Although we accepted for inclusion studies
that presented data for a cohort with a
mean follow-up of 5 years, only three
studies qualified for inclusion. In a previous systematic review on implant therapy (Berglundh et al. 2002), it was
suggested to exclude studies in which
o80% of the initial subject sample had
been followed for 5 years. If this criterion
had been applied, only one study (Wennstrom et al. 2004) would qualify for inclusion since in the other two studies (Kreissl
et al. 2007; Halg et al. 2008) only 4665%
of the implant constructions were observed
for a period of 5 years. However, because of
the scarcity of identified studies addressing
the issue of cantilever extensions, we
decided to retain these studies.
Based on the three studies included in
the current review, the calculated overall 5year prosthesis survival rate was 92% for
cantilever FPDPs, compared with 96% for
non-cantilever FPDPs. Although these figures may indicate a somewhat inferior
performance for the cantilever prostheses,
the results should be interpreted with caution because the sample size is small. The
overall prosthesis survival rate in the included studies was comparable with the
results of a previous systematic review on
implant-supported FDPs (Pjetursson et al.
64 |
Zurdo et al Survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed partial dentures with cantilevers
Conclusions
Within the limitations of the current review,
the following conclusions can be made:
Clinical implications
An implant-supported FPDP with a short
cantilever extension (one tooth unit) is an
acceptable restorative therapy, and might be
considered as an alternative to procedures
that require more advanced surgery (e.g.
sinus graft, etc.) or for esthetic reasons.
c 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S
implant-supported fixed partial dentures in partially edentulous cases after an average observation period of 5 years. Clinical Oral Implants
Research 18: 720726.
Wennstrom, J., Zurdo, J., Karlsson, S., Ekestubbe,
A., Grondahl, K. & Lindhe, J. (2004) Bone level
65 |
Zurdo et al Survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed partial dentures with cantilevers
References not included in the systematic review, but quoted in the manuscript
Adell, R., Eriksson, B., Lekholm, U., Branemark,
P.I. & Jemt, T. (1990) A long-term follow-up
study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. International
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 5:
347359.
Adell, R., Lekholm, U., Rockier, B. & Branemark,
P.-I. (1981) A 15-year study of osseointegrated
implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw.
International Journal of Oral Surgery 10: 387
416.
Albrektsson, T. (1988) A multicenter report on
osseointegrated oral implants. Journal of Prosthetic & Dentistry 60: 7584.
Albrektsson, T., Zarb, G., Worthington, P. & Eriksson, A.R. (1986) The long-term efficacy of
currently used dental implants: a review and
proposed criteria of success. International
Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants 1:
1125.
Becker, C.M. (2004) Cantilever fixed prostheses
utilizing dental implants: a 10-year retrospective
analysis. Quintessence International 35: 437
441.
Berglundh, T., Persson, L. & Klinge, B. (2002) A
systematic review of the incidence of biological
and technical complications in implant dentistry
reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at
least 5 years. Journal of Clinical Periodontology
29 (Suppl. 3): 197212; discussion 232193.
Blanes, R.J., Bernard, J.P., Blanes, Z.M. & Belser,
U.C. (2007) A 10-year prospective study of ITI
dental implants placed in the posterior region. II:
influence of the crown-to-implant ratio and different prosthetic treatment modalities on crestal
bone loss. Clinical Oral Implants Research 18:
707714.
Davis, D.M., Packer, M.E. & Watson R, .M. (2003)
Maintenance requirements of implant-supported
fixed prostheses opposed by implant-supported
fixed prostheses, natural teeth, or complete dentures: a 5-year retrospective study. International
Journal of Prosthodontics 16: 521523.
Gotfredsen, K., Berglundh, T. & Lindhe, J. (2001a)
Bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants
subjected to static load of different duration. A
study in the dog (III). Clinical Oral Implants
Research 12: 552558.
Gotfredsen, K., Berglundh, T. & Lindhe, J. (2001b)
Bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants
subjected to static load. A study in the dog (I).
Clinical Oral Implants Research 12: 18.
Isidor, F. (1996) Loss of osseointegration caused by
occlusal load of oral implants. A clinical and
radiographic study in monkeys. Clinical Oral
Implants Research 7: 143152.
Isidor, F. (1997) Histological evaluation of peri-implant bone at implants subjected to occlusal over-
66 |
c 2009 John Wiley & Sons A/S