Mandibular All-On-Four Therapy Using Angled Implants: A Three-Year Clinical Study of 857 Implants in 219 Jaws

Butura, Caesar C.; Galindo, Daniel F.; Jensen, Ole T.

doi:10.1016/j.cden.2011.07.015

Cited by 27 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure 13 Agliardi et al 14 Babbush et al 24 Butura et al 25 Design 27 Maló et al 8 Maló et al 23 (Figure 4). Then 2,000 implants were placed in maxillae and 2,804 in mandibles.…”

Section: Effects Of Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 13 Agliardi et al 14 Babbush et al 24 Butura et al 25 Design 27 Maló et al 8 Maló et al 23 (Figure 4). 15,21,22,25,27 One implant fractured at the platform level during insertion; 27 this implant was not recognized as an implant failure. 21,22 No basis for implant failures was provided in 22% of cases.…”

Section: Effects Of Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Applied techniques were OPT and PAR using a paralleling technique, 13 OPT and PAR, 14,21 solely PAR using a paralleling technique, 15 solely OPT, 16,28 PAR using a paralleling technique and an individual x-ray holder, 17,18 and PAR using a paralleling technique and an x-ray holder. Babbush et al 24 The all-on-four immediate function treatment concept with NobelActive implants: a retrospective study Butura et al 25 Mandibular all-on-four therapy using angled implants: a three-year clinical study of 857 implants in 219 jaws Capelli et al 15 Immediate rehabilitation of the completely edentulous jaw with fixed prostheses supported by either upright or tilted implants: a multicenter clinical study Crespi et al 16 A clinical study of edentulous patients rehabilitated according to the "all on four" immediate function protocol Francetti et al 17 Immediate rehabilitation of the mandible with fixed full prosthesis supported by axial and tilted implants: interim results of a single cohort prospective study Francetti et al 18 Bone level changes around axial and tilted implants in full-arch fixed immediate restorations. 13 Agliardi et al 13 Immediate loading of full-arch fixed prostheses supported by axial and tilted implants for the treatment of edentulous atrophic mandibles Agliardi et al 14 Immediate rehabilitation of the edentulous jaws with full fixed prostheses supported by four implants: interim results of a single cohort prospective study (Note: Only data of the maxilla were included.)…”

Section: Radiographic Examination and Evaluation Of Marginalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…21,22 No basis for implant failures was provided in 22% of cases. 15,16,27 All other final prostheses were delivered 3 to 8 months following implant placement, except in Butura and colleagues (only 173 provisional prostheses were transitioned into final prostheses), 25 Maló and colleagues 20 (four prosthesis remained in acrylic resin), and Maló and colleagues 21,22 (unclear whether all prostheses were transitioned into final prosthesis). Sixty of 74 failed implants were replaced but not included in further statistical analyses.…”

Section: Effects Of Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15,21,22,25,27 One implant fractured at the platform level during insertion; 27 this implant was not recognized as an implant failure. In nine papers, the final prostheses were metal-framework supported, [13][14][15]17,18,24,25,27,28 and in one paper, 16 either metal-framework supported or entirely made of resin. Neither of the implant failures compromised prostheses survival.…”

Section: Effects Of Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The All‐on‐Four Treatment Concept: A Systematic Review

Patzelt

Bahat

Reynolds

et al. 2013

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

165

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The available data provide promising short-term results for the all-on-four treatment approach; however, current evidence is limited by the quality of available studies and the paucity of data on long-term clinical outcomes of 5 years or greater. In terms of an evidence-based dentistry, the authors recommend further studies designed as randomized controlled clinical trials and reported according to the CONSORT statement.

show abstract

“…Figure 13 Agliardi et al 14 Babbush et al 24 Butura et al 25 Design 27 Maló et al 8 Maló et al 23 (Figure 4). Then 2,000 implants were placed in maxillae and 2,804 in mandibles.…”

Section: Effects Of Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effects Of Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Radiographic Examination and Evaluation Of Marginalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effects Of Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effects Of Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The All‐on‐Four Treatment Concept: A Systematic Review

Patzelt

Bahat

Reynolds

et al. 2013

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

165

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Retrospective Analysis of 800 Brånemark System Implants Following the All‐on‐Four™ Protocol

Balshi¹,

Wolfinger²,

Slauch³

et al. 2015

Journal of Prosthodontics on Dental Implants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate implant survival rates in patients treated with the All-on-Four TM protocol according to edentulous jaws, gender, and implant orientation (tilted vs. axial). Materials and Methods: All Brånemark System implants placed in patients following the All-on-Four TM protocol in a single private practice were separated into multiple classifications (maxilla vs. mandible; male vs. female; tilted vs. axial) by retrospective patient chart review. Inclusion criteria consisted of any Brånemark System implant placed with the All-on-Four TM protocol from the clinical inception (May 2005) until December 2011. Life tables were constructed to determine cumulative implant survival rates (CSR). The arches, genders, and implant orientations were statistically compared with ANOVA. Results: One hundred fifty-two patients, comprising 200 arches (800 implants) from May 2005 until December 2011, were included in the study. Overall implant CSR was 97.3% (778 of 800). Two hundred eighty-nine of 300 maxillary implants and of 500 mandibular implants survived, for CSRs of 96.3% and 97.8%, respectively. In male patients, 251 of 256 implants (98.1%) remain in function while 527 of implants (96.9%) in female patients survived. Regarding implant orientation, 389 of 400 tilted implants and 389 of 400 axial implants osseointegrated, for identical CSRs of 97.3%. All comparisons were found to be statistically insignificant. The prosthesis survival rate was 99.0%. Conclusions:The results from this study suggest that edentulous jaws, gender, and implant orientation are not significant parameters when formulating an All-on-Four TM treatment plan. The high CSRs for each variable analyzed demonstrate the All-on-Four TM treatment as a viable alternative to more extensive protocols for rehabilitating the edentulous maxilla or mandible.

show abstract

Complete‐Arch Dental Implant Treatment Using Photogrammetry and Delayed Immediate Loading

2022

Essential Techniques of Alveolar Bone Augmentation in Implant Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mandibular All-On-Four Therapy Using Angled Implants: A Three-Year Clinical Study of 857 Implants in 219 Jaws

Cited by 27 publications

References 16 publications

The All‐on‐Four Treatment Concept: A Systematic Review

The All‐on‐Four Treatment Concept: A Systematic Review

A Retrospective Analysis of 800 Brånemark System Implants Following the All‐on‐Four™ Protocol

Complete‐Arch Dental Implant Treatment Using Photogrammetry and Delayed Immediate Loading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About