Clinical and radiographic peri‐implant health status around narrow diameter implant‐supported single and splinted crowns

Abstract

Background

Studies assessing and comparing clinical and radiographic peri‐implant status around narrow diameter implant‐supported single crowns (NDISCs) and splinted crowns (NDISPs) are scarce.

Objective

The aim of this retrospective study was to estimate and compare complication rates, patient satisfaction, peri‐implant status and peri‐implant bone loss (PBL) of NDISCs and NDISPs.

Materials and Methods

Patients receiving narrow diameter implants (NDIs) in the posterior mandible were assessed. Technical complication and patient satisfaction were recorded. Clinical peri‐implant plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BoP), probing depth (PD) and PBL were assessed. Technical complications and patient satisfaction were recorded. Log‐rank test was computed to evaluate the influence of prostheses type and NDIs location on technical complications. P‐value less than 0.05 was regarded as significant.

Results

Seventy‐eight patients (43 male and 35 females) agreed to follow up. The mean follow‐up duration of the patients was 3.6 years. A total of 102 (43 NDISCs and 59 NDISPs) NDIs with moderately rough surfaces were included. No significant differences in PI, BoP, or PD were observed between NDISCs and NDISPs. The average PBL score was 1.17 (range: 0.03‐4.15) at implant level and 1.14 (range: 0.03‐4.14) at patient level. Seven implants and three patients showed peri‐implantitis. The rates of technical complication of single crowns were significantly higher than those of splinted crowns (P = 0.036). PBL was significantly higher in molar sites than those in premolar sites (P = 0.041). A total of 67 patients (85.9%) were satisfied with the esthetics of the crowns, while a total of 59 patients (75.6%) were satisfied with the function of the crowns.

Conclusion

NDISCs and NDISPs offer high patient satisfaction and tolerable complication rates. Peri‐implant conditions and peri‐implant bone levels were comparable around NDISCs and NDISPs. However, bone loss of implants was higher in molar sites than those implants in premolar sites.

http://bit.ly/2N977Vc