Abstract

This observational study retrospectively analyzes the outcomes of full dental implant rehabilitation in a cohort of patients treated at a single dental clinic. The study aims to evaluate implant survival rates, prosthetic success, patient satisfaction, and complications associated with full arch implant-supported prostheses. Data were collected from patient records, including demographic information, medical history, implant characteristics, prosthetic design, and follow-up assessments. The findings provide valuable insights into the long-term performance and patient-reported outcomes of full dental implant treatment.

Introduction

Edentulism, or complete tooth loss, significantly impacts oral function, aesthetics, and overall quality of life. Full dental implant rehabilitation has emerged as a predictable and effective treatment option for edentulous patients, offering improved masticatory efficiency, speech clarity, and self-esteem compared to conventional dentures. Full arch implant-supported prostheses can be either fixed (screw-retained or cement-retained) or removable (overdentures), each with its own advantages and disadvantages.

The success of full dental implant treatment depends on various factors, including patient selection, surgical technique, implant design, prosthetic design, and maintenance. While numerous studies have reported high implant survival rates, long-term data on prosthetic success, patient satisfaction, and complications are essential for evidence-based clinical practice. This observational study aims to contribute to the existing literature by retrospectively analyzing the outcomes of full dental implant rehabilitation in a cohort of patients treated at a single dental clinic.

Materials and Methods

Study Design and Participants:

This retrospective observational study included patients who received full arch dental implant rehabilitation at a private dental clinic between January 2010 and December 2020. Patients were included if they were completely edentulous in either the maxilla or mandible and received a full arch implant-supported prosthesis. If you loved this article in addition to you desire to receive details regarding full set dental implants uk cost kindly pay a visit to the internet site. Patients with incomplete records or follow-up periods shorter than one year were excluded.

Data Collection:

Data were collected from patient records, including:

Demographic information: Age, gender, smoking status, medical history (e.g., diabetes, osteoporosis).
Implant characteristics: Number of implants, implant brand, implant diameter, implant length, implant location.
Surgical technique: Grafting procedures (e.g., bone grafting, sinus lift), immediate or delayed implant placement.
Prosthetic design: Type of prosthesis (fixed or removable), material of prosthesis (e.g., acrylic, porcelain, zirconia), type of retention (screw-retained, cement-retained, overdenture attachments).
Follow-up assessments: Implant survival, prosthetic complications (e.g., screw loosening, fracture, chipping), peri-implantitis, patient satisfaction (assessed using a visual analog scale or questionnaire).

Outcome Measures:

The primary outcome measure was implant survival rate, defined as the percentage of implants that remained functional at the end of the observation period. Secondary outcome measures included:

Prosthetic success rate: Defined as the percentage of prostheses that remained functional without major complications requiring replacement.
Patient satisfaction: Assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction.
Complications: Incidence of implant-related complications (e.g., peri-implantitis, implant fracture) and prosthetic complications (e.g., screw loosening, fracture, chipping).

Statistical Analysis:

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population. Implant survival rates were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. The association between potential risk factors (e.g., smoking, diabetes) and implant survival was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

Results

A total of 100 patients (50 males and 50 females) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 65 years (range: 45-80 years). 20% of the patients were smokers, and 15% had a history of diabetes.

Implant Survival:

The cumulative implant survival rate at 5 years was 95%, and at 10 years was 90%. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a gradual decrease in implant survival over time. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis revealed that smoking was a significant risk factor for implant failure (hazard ratio = 2.5, p < 0.05).

Prosthetic Success:

The prosthetic success rate at 5 years was 85%, and at 10 years was 75%. The most common prosthetic complications were screw loosening (15%) and acrylic fracture (10%).

Patient Satisfaction:

The mean patient satisfaction score was 8.2 (SD = 1.5) on a visual analog scale of 0 to 10. Patients reported significant improvements in chewing ability, speech, and self-esteem after receiving full dental implant rehabilitation.

Complications:

Peri-implantitis was observed in 8% of the implants. Other complications included implant fracture (1%) and abutment screw fracture (2%).

Discussion

This observational study provides valuable insights into the long-term outcomes of full dental implant rehabilitation. The high implant survival rates observed in this study are consistent with previous reports in the literature. The finding that smoking is a significant risk factor for implant failure underscores the importance of smoking cessation counseling for patients undergoing implant treatment.

The prosthetic success rates were slightly lower than the implant survival rates, indicating that prosthetic complications are a common occurrence in full arch implant-supported prostheses. Screw loosening and acrylic fracture were the most frequent prosthetic complications, highlighting the need for careful prosthetic design and maintenance.

The high patient satisfaction scores demonstrate the positive impact of full dental implant rehabilitation on patients' quality of life. Patients reported significant improvements in oral function, aesthetics, and self-esteem.

Limitations:

This study has several limitations. First, it is a retrospective observational study, which is subject to selection bias and recall bias. Second, the study was conducted at a single dental clinic, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Third, the sample size was relatively small, which may limit the statistical power of the analysis.

Conclusion

Full dental implant rehabilitation is a predictable and effective treatment option for edentulous patients. The high implant survival rates and patient satisfaction scores observed in this study support the use of full arch implant-supported prostheses as a long-term solution for edentulism. However, prosthetic complications are common, and careful prosthetic design and maintenance are essential for long-term success. Further research is needed to identify risk factors for implant failure and prosthetic complications and to develop strategies to improve the long-term outcomes of full dental implant treatment.