Clinical and radiological assessment of the condition of implants with fixed structures in the dynamics of 20-year follow-up

The statistically significant long-term results of the implant survival and the effectiveness of prostheses are inadequately represented in scientific literature. The study was aimed to assess the effectiveness of prosthetics with fixed structures on the intraosseous dental implants for the replacement of partially absent dentition in the dynamics of the 20-year follow-up. A total of 671 patients with partially missing teeth were examined at the Clinical Center of Dentistry of the FMBA of Russia, who were fitted with 1,700 intraosseous titanium dental implants with the terms from the moment of completion of prosthetics on implants of 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. The criteria for clinical and radiological evaluation of the implant condition were as follows: no complications affecting the condition of periimplant tissues (normal), mucositis, periimplantitis with bone resorption at 1/3 or 1/2 of the implant height, implant removal. Based on 20 years of experience, prosthetics with fixed structures on implants is highly effective in replacing the partial defects of dentition. In total, 62.2% of implants remain functional for 20 years. The average life of implant-supported fixed prostheses is 15 years for bridges, and 20 years for single and combined implant-supported crowns. The most effective are single implant-supported crowns, and the least effective are prostheses supported by implants and teeth. The significantly preserved implant-supported prostheses make it possible to support the concept of the long-term implant installation with respect to the implant-supported non-removable prostheses. The view is thus confirmed that the effectiveness of the implant-supported prosthetics is reduced with the inclusion of teeth in the bridge support, along with implants. 

1. Put VA, Solodkiy VG, Morozov PV, Olesova VN, Teplov E.V. Nine years of experience in conducting social community events for dental implantation. Russian Bulletin of Dental Implantology. 2019; (3–4): 75–81. Russian.

2. Zaslavskiy RS, Olesova VN, Shmatov KV, Ivanov AS, Zaslavskiy SA, The structure of the clinical conditions and the methods of prosthetics used in practical implantology. Dentistry for everyone. 2018; (3): 30–33. Russian.

3. Martynov DV. Experimental and clinical study of the precision of components of dismountable dental implants [dissertation]. M., 2021. Russian.

4. French D, Kokran D, Ofek R. Retrospective cohort study of 4591 Straumann implants installed in 2060 patients in private practice, with follow-up for up to 10 years: relationship between the level of the bone of the alveolar ridge and the state of soft tissues. PERIO IQ. 2017; (28): 22–42.

5. Sakaeva ZU, Zaslavskiy RS, Remizova AA, Ragulin AV, Popov AA, Olesov EE. Clinical and microbiological substantiation of the frequency of professional oral hygiene during implant treatment. Russian Bulletin of Dental Implantology. 2020; (3–4): 79–83. Russian.

6. Bersanov RU. Functional and economic efficiency of modern methods orthopedic rehabilitation of patients with partial and complete adentia [dissertation]. M., 2016. Russian.

7. Povstyanko YuA. Comparative study of modern dental implants: experimental clinical and technological aspects [dissertation]. M., 2018. Russian.

8. Zucchelli G, Tavelli L, Stefanini M. Classification of facial periimplant soft tissue dehiscence/deficiencies at single implant sites in the esthetic zone. J Periodontol. 2019; 90 (10): 1116–24.

9. Shi JY, Xu FY, Zhuang LF, Gu YX, Qiao SC, Lai HC. Longterm outcomes of narrow diameter implants in posterior jaws: A retrospective study with at least 8-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants. 2018; 29 (1): 76–81.

10. Ma M, Qi M, Zhang D, Liu H. The clinical performance of narrow diameter implants versus regular diameter implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implant Res. 2018; 29 (1): 100–7.

11. Long L, Alqarni H, Masri R. Influence of implant abutment fabrication method on clinical outcomes: a systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 10 (1): 67–77.

12. Heitz-Mayfield LJA., Salvi GE. Peri-implant mucositis. J Clin Periodontol. 2018; 45 (20): 237–45.

13. Tsitsiashvili AM, Panin AM, Volosova EV. The success of treatment and the survival rate of dental implants in different approaches to the treatment of patients using dental implants in conditions of a limited bone tissue volume. Russian Dental Journal. 2020; (1–2): 32–38. Russian.

14. Bulycheva EA, Trezubov VV. Preliminary dental prosthetics. A guide for dentists. St. Petersburg: Man, 2019; 92 p. Russian.

15. Trezubov VN, Arutyunov SD, editors. Clinical dentistry. Hospital course. In 6 t. m.: Practical medicine, 2020; 1688 p. Russian.

16. Kulakov AA, editor. Surgical dentistry and maxillofacial surgery. National leadership. M.: GEOTAR-Media, 2015; 928 p. Russian.

17. Kulakov AA, editor. Dental implantation. National guidelines M.: GEOTAR-Media, 2018; 400 p. Russian.

18. Lebedenko IYu, Arutyunov SD, Ryakhovskiy AN, editors. Prosthetic Dentistry. National Guidelines. M.: GEOTAR-Media, 2016; 824 p. Russian.