Clinical success between tilted and axial implants in edentulous maxilla: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Mehta, Shruti; Sutariya, Priyanka Vaibhav; Pathan, Mansoorkhan Rafikahmed; Upadhyay, Hemil Hitesh; Patel, Surbhi Ravi; Kantharia, Nidhi

doi:10.4103/jips.jips_79_21

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Group 3 implants, which were installed with a vertical angle of more than 20°, had about one-quarter of the marginal bone resorption of Group 1 at their first-year radiographic evaluation. Several previous studies have shown that tilting an implant does not affect its survival or marginal bone resorption 7 - 13 . However, we found that intentional tilting not only did not affect implant survival, but also reduced the mean peri-implant bone resorption.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tilted implants for implant-supported fixed hybrid prostheses: retrospective review

Seok,

Yun,

Chang

et al. 2023

JKAOMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This review assessed the performance of implant-supported fixed hybrid prostheses in 21 patients who received a total of 137 implants between 2003 and 2010. The implants were evaluated for marginal bone resorption, complications, success rate, and survival rate based on their vertical angularity, type of bone graft, and measured implant stability. Materials and Methods One-way ANOVA and chi-square tests were used to analyze the relationships among long-term evaluation factors and these variables. The mean initial bone resorption in the implant group with a vertical angle of more than 20° was 0.33 mm and mean final bone resorption was 0.76 mm. In contrast, the mean initial bone resorption in the implant group with a vertical angle of less than 10° was 1.19 mm and mean final bone resorption was 2.17 mm. Results The results showed that mean bone resorption decreased with an increase in the vertical placement angle of the implants used in fixed hybrid prostheses, as well as in the group without additional bone grafts and those with high implant stability. The success rate of implants placed after bone grafting was found to be higher than those placed simultaneously. Conclusion These results suggest that implant-supported fixed hybrid prostheses may be an effective treatment option for edentulous patients, and intentionally placing implants with high angularity may improve outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tilted implants for implant-supported fixed hybrid prostheses: retrospective review

Seok,

Yun,

Chang

et al. 2023

JKAOMS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The primitive concept advocated the use of implant placement that was "in-line" or perpendicular to occlusal stresses and claimed that tilted implants would lose bone and eventually "de-osseointegrate". (Mehta et al, 2021) However, another technique for treating atrophic edentulous maxilla using titled implants was discovered to be a possible therapeutic option because of technological advancements. (Morton et al, 2018) Its goal was to get maximum cortical bone involved for support.…”

Section: Treatment Optionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative study between two different designs of four implants placement supporting mandibular overdenture: Review article

Amin,

Taha,

Habib

2023

Delta University Scientific Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Edentulous patients are often associated with decreased in the masticatory function, loss in vertical dimension, speech impairment and poor esthetics due to loss in facial musculature support. The traditional way for treating edentulous patients is a complete removable denture. However, the progressive tissue changes occur due to wearing the denture should be compensated by denture adjustment. In completely edentulous patients the implant supported overdentures is a common treatment plan which could improve oral function and comfort for edentulous patients. The concept of rehabilitation of full arch on four implants is a useful therapy in the treatment of an edentulous patient. The quadrilateral design showed enhanced results in regard to survival and success rate and minimal strain compared to curved (three implants) or linear (two implants) designs. Tilting the distal implant giving us various advantages as the implant reach a more posterior position so the length of the cantilever is reduced. Also it preserves related vital structures, avoid bone grafting and allows using longer implants that increases the implant primary stability due to increased implant-to-bone contact area, increases the inter-implant space, lead to better load distribution. The rehabilitation of edentulous mandible with telescopic overdenture supported by four parallel implants was a successful treatment option however, tilting the posterior implants 30 degree distally might present a several advantages regarding the increased anteroposterior spread which in turn decrease the load transmitted to the implant.

show abstract

“…Unlike these procedures, which involved a deferred load, in Group C, in accordance with several prior research results, patients were subjected to immediate loading [25,26].…”

Section: Prosthetic Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tilted Implants and Sinus Floor Elevation Techniques Compared in Posterior Edentulous Maxilla: A Retrospective Clinical Study over Four Years of Follow-Up

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate the implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and surgical and prosthetic complications of implants placed through sinus floor elevation and tilted implants engaged in basal bone to bypass the maxillary sinus. Sixty patients were enrolled for this study. According to the residual bone height of the posterior maxilla, the sample was divided into three groups of 20 patients: Group A (lateral sinus floor elevation), Group B (transcrestal sinus floor elevation), and Group C (tilted implants employed to bypass the sinus floor). Follow-up visits were performed one week after surgery, at three and six months, and then once a year for the next 4 years. The outcomes were the implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, and surgical and prosthetic complications. Although Groups A, B, and C demonstrated implant survival rates of 83.3%, 86.7%, and 98.3%, respectively, the statistical analysis showed no statistically significant difference between groups. Statistically significant differences between groups were also not found concerning marginal bone loss, as recorded by intra-oral X-ray measurements during follow-up examinations. Regarding complications, it was not possible to perform a statistical analysis. To reduce possible surgical risks, implant placement in basal bone could be preferred.

show abstract

Clinical success between tilted and axial implants in edentulous maxilla: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 9 publications

References 50 publications

Tilted implants for implant-supported fixed hybrid prostheses: retrospective review

Tilted implants for implant-supported fixed hybrid prostheses: retrospective review

Comparative study between two different designs of four implants placement supporting mandibular overdenture: Review article

Tilted Implants and Sinus Floor Elevation Techniques Compared in Posterior Edentulous Maxilla: A Retrospective Clinical Study over Four Years of Follow-Up

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About