Effect of prosthetic restoration on implant survival and success

Abstract Purpose The objective of this work was to evaluate the effect of prosthetic restoration on the survival of implants and on the incidence of implant‐related complications. Material and methods From a prospectively documented clinical study, 1569 implants placed in 630 patients (mean age 59.56 years) were evaluated. Selection criteria were a conventional loading protocol, prosthetic restoration with at least one follow‐up, and a minimum observation period of 9 months. Implants that failed before prosthetic restoration were excluded. The sample included 1345 tissue‐level implants and 104 bone‐level implants (Straumann), and 120 Replace implants (Nobel Biocare). The observation period ranged between 9 months and 11 years after prosthetic restoration (mean 4.0 years; SD 2.5). The implants were restored with single crowns ( n = 557), fixed dental prostheses ( n = 594), or removable dental prostheses (RDP) ( n = 418). In the RDP group, 356 implants were restored with telescoping crowns, 22 with bar units 24 with bar joints, and 16 with locator attachments. The incidence of implant‐related complications and failures was analyzed by use of Kaplan–Meier survival curves. Cox regression analysis was used to identify possible risk factors. Results Twenty‐seven failures (1.8%; loosened or removed implants) were observed after prosthetic restoration; the incidence of failure was 3% for implants placed in males and 1% for implants placed in females. Other factors had no effect on the incidence of failure. Peri‐implantitis ( n = 29) and marginal bone loss >2 mm without acute inflammation ( n = 6) also resulted in a 4% incidence of severe implant‐related complications (62 of 1569; success 96%). Cox regression analysis revealed combined tooth–implant‐supported restorations as a significant risk‐reducing factor for severe implant‐related complications (hazard ratio, HR = 0.34; P = 0.04). There was, furthermore, a tendency toward a greater incidence of complications for implants restored with RDP s than for single crowns ( P = 0.08). Other factors, for example location (anterior/posterior, maxilla/mandible), age, sex, or implant placement combined with bone augmentation, had no significant effect on the incidence of implant‐related complications ( P values ranging between 0.16 and 0.94). Conclusions The type of support has a small but significant effect on implant prognosis. For detailed analysis of the effects of loading by different types of prosthetic restoration, larger sample sizes are required.