Conclusions
ISFD in the posterior maxilla presented high rates of ABL and showed a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis. None of the local factors seemed to contribute to the development of these conditions. Further investigations are needed to prospectively support the results of the present study. Clinical relevance: Patients rehabilitated with ISFD should be carefully monitored and have more frequent maintenance visits to prevent or control peri-implant bone loss.
Methods
Two hundred seventy-seven external hex connection implants placed in the posterior maxilla of 124 patients were retrospectively evaluated. They were divided into two groups: physiologic bone loss < 2 mm (PBL) or additional bone loss ≥ 2 mm (ABL). GEE logistic regression was applied to evaluate the influence of type of prostheses (implant-supported single crown (ISSC), fixed partial denture (ISFPD), and full denture (ISFD)) and clinical parameters (mPI and S/BOP) on bone loss.
Results
Among the 277 implants, 159 (57.4%) presented PBL and 118 (42.6%) presented ABL. Within the ABL group, 20.6% implants were diagnosed with peri-implantitis. mPI significantly correlated with the type of prosthesis and the highest value of mPI (index = 3) was observed in ISFD (23.8%). Moreover, peri-implantitis was more frequently associated with ISFD (32.79%) than ISSC and ISFDP (13.79% and 13.48, respectively) CONCLUSIONS: ISFD in the posterior maxilla presented high rates of ABL and showed a higher prevalence of peri-implantitis. None of the local factors seemed to contribute to the development of these conditions. Further investigations are needed to prospectively support the results of the present study. Clinical relevance: Patients rehabilitated with ISFD should be carefully monitored and have more frequent maintenance visits to prevent or control peri-implant bone loss.