Clinical analysis of the short-term and long-term results of the implant-supported Trefoil dental rehabilitation in Russia

Close metadata

THE AIM OF THE STUDY

Was to presents the first clinical medium-term (18 months) results of implant-supported rehabilitation using this method in Russia, with the special attention paid to the assessment of the patient’s quality of life on the GOHAI scale.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The authors performed a clinical and paraclinical examination of 29 patients (20 women and 9 men). The age of the patients ranged from 47 to 88 (average value — 65.45±9.7). We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients operated from June 2017 till March 2019. The patients filled in GOHAI questionnaires about their state of health and quality of life (before treatment and 6 weeks post-surgery). Patients with one or more anterior teeth present as well as fully edentulous mandibles were included in the study. The antagonist teeth could be presented as complete dentures, natural teeth, or implant-supported fixed restorations. All patients received three Trefoil implants (Nobel Biocare AB) inserted with a torque of at least 35 Ncm. The Trefoil bar (Nobel Biocare AB) was used as the framework of the Trefoil bioengineering structure. Statistical processing of the results was performed using the SPSS 23 software. The t-test for dependent samples was used to compare the results of GOHAI surveys before and after the operation and the following statistical hypotheses were suggested: H0 — the results of the GOHAI survey before the operation do not differ from the results of the GOHAI survey after the operation; H1 — GOHAI pre-op survey results are different from GOHAI post-op survey results. A comparison was made between the GOHAI results before and after surgery in male and female patients using the t-test for independent samples.

RESULTS

29 patients included in this (20 females and 9 males) with the mean age of 65 (range:47-88). The average time of operation (surgical operation, prosthetic stage including dental lab work) the Trefoil technique was 6.18 ± 0.87 hours. With the presence of teeth in the mandible, the operation took longer by an average of 45 minutes. Patients were followed for 15±6 months. No chipping of artificial teeth or fractures of the veneering was observed. The survival rate of restorations was 100%. The implant survival rate was 98.85%. The results of the GOHAI survey after surgery show a significant difference from the results of the pre-op survey. If we analyze the average values for the sample, it can be argued that the average result for the GOHAI survey before the operation (29.86) is significantly lower than the average one for the GOHAI survey after the operation (54.93).

CONCLUSION

Preliminary medium-term results of the Trefoil concept for implant-supported rehabilitation of the mandible indicate high patient satisfaction results after 6-18 months of follow-up. It requires a further comprehensive study to obtain data with more patients and over a longer follow-up period.

Keywords:

dental implant prosthetics

Trefoil

quality of life

GOHAI survey

Authors:

R.A. Rozov

I.P. Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University

SPIN RSCI: 1173-7870
Scopus AuthorID: 57205048723
ResearcherID: E-3677-2019
ORCID: 0000-0001-5804-9497

V.N. Trezubov

I.P. Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University

A.B. Gerasimov

City Dental Clinic No. 33

M.V. Kopylov

MaxTreat Dental Clinic

G.S. Azarin

Novgorod State University named after Yaroslav the Wise

Received:

07.02.2020

Accepted:

27.07.2020

List of references:

Trezubov V, Parshin Y, Rozov R, Simonenko A. Clinical substantiation of the sparing and less invasive implant prosthetics of the edentulous lower jaw method. Stomatologija, Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal. 2018;20: 125-129.
Trezubov VN, Rozov RA, Azarin GS. Conceptual approach to classification of implant supported prosthesis for edentulous patients. Stomatologiia (Mosk). 2017;96(1):51-55. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat201796151-55
Douglass CW, Shih A, Ostry L. Will there be a need for complete dentures in the United States in 2020? J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87(1):5-8. PubMed PMID: 11807476.
Douglass CW, Jiménez MC. Our current geriatric population: demographic and oral health care utilization. Dent Clin North Am. 2014;58(4):717-728. Epub 2014 Jul 30. Review. PubMed PMID: 25201537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2014.06.001
Srinivasan M, Meyer S, Mombelli A, Müller F. Dental implants in the elderly population: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(8):920-930. Epub 2016 Jun 7. Review. PubMed PMID: 27273468. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12898
Iordanishvili AK. Mental health of elderly and old people when using a complete dry dental prosthesis: myth or reality? Stomatologiia (Mosk). 2017;96(5): 56-61. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17116/stomat201796556-61
Kochurova EV, Nikolenko VN, Kudasova EO. Peculiarities of cerebral cortex synthetic activity at determination of adaptive ability in patients with completely absent dentition. Medical News of North Caucasus. 2019;14(2): 356-359. https://doi.org/10.14300/mnnc.2019.14087
Li SY, Li G, Feng HL, Pan SX. Influence of the interforaminal arch form of edentulous mandibles on design of «All-on-4»: preliminary research based on conebeam computed tomography. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao. 2017;49(4): 699-703.
Brånemark PI, Engstrand P, Ohrnell LO, Gröndahl K, Nilsson P, Hagberg K, Darle C, Lekholm U. Brånemark Novum: a new treatment concept for rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible. Preliminary results from a prospective clinical follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 1999;1(1):2-16. PubMed PMID: 11359307.
Engstrand P, Gröndahl K, Ohrnell LO, Nilsson P, Nannmark U, Brånemark PI. Prospective follow-up study of 95 patients with edentulous mandibles treated according to the Brånemark Novum concept. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2003;5(1):3-10. PubMed PMID: 12831723.
De Bruyn H, Kisch J, Collaert B, Lindén U, Nilner K, Dvärsäter L. Fixed mandibular restorations on three early-loaded regular platform Brånemark implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2001;3(4):176-184.
Jemt T. Implant failures and age at the time of surgery: A retrospective study on implant treatments in 4585 edentulous jaws. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 30884110. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12753
Malm MO, Jemt T, Stenport V. Early Implant Failures in Edentulous Patients: A Multivariable Regression Analysis of 4615 Consecutively Treated Jaws. A Retrospective Study. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(9):803-812. Epub 2018 Oct 29. PubMed PMID: 30307086. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12985
Cannizzaro Gioacchino; Viola Paolo; Ippolito Daniela Rita; Esposito Marco Immediate loading of one (fixed-on-1) versus two (fixed-on-2) implants placed flapless supporting mandibular screw-retained cross-arch fixed prostheses: 10-month results from an explanatory randomised controlled trial. European Journal of Oral Implantology. 2019;12:1:89-102. 14p.
Higuchi K, Liddelow G. An Innovative Implant-Supported Treatment for the Edentulous Mandible: Case Report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34(2):13-16. PubMed PMID: 30883627. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.6813
Rozov RA, Trezubov VN, Liddelow G. Clinical and radiographic classification of implant supported prosthesis for edentulous patients. Parodontologiya. 2019;24(2):157-160. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.33925/1683-3759-2019-24-2-157-160
Karl M, Carretta R, Higuchi KW. Passivity of Fit of a Novel Prefabricated Implant-Supported Mandibular Full-Arch Reconstruction: A Comparative In Vitro Study. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31(5):440-442. Epub 2018 May 17. PubMed PMID: 29772033. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5707
Lopes A, Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Sánchez-Fernández E, Gravito I. The NobelGuide All-on-4Treatment Concept for Rehabilitation of Edentulous Jaws: A Retrospective Report on the 7-Years Clinical and 5-Years Radiographic Outcomes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19(2):233-244. Epub 2016 Oct 18. PubMed PMID: 27758069. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12456
Cannizzaro G, Felice P, Gherlone E, Barausse C, Ferri V, Leone M, Trullenque-Eriksson A, Esposito M. Immediate loading of two (fixed-on-2) vs four (fixed-on-4) implants placed with a flapless technique supporting mandibular cross-arch fixed prostheses: 3-year results from a pilot randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10(2):133-145. PubMed PMID: 28555204.
Cannizzaro G, Cavallari M, Lazzarini M, Purello D’ambrosio G, Scialpi G, Audino S, Velasco-Ortega E, Ippolito DR, Esposito M. Immediate loading of three (fixed-on-3) vs four (fixed-on-4) implants supporting cross-arch fixed prostheses: 1-year results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018;11(3):323-333. PubMed PMID: 30246185.
Kahnberg KE, Henry PJ, Hirsch JM, Ohrnell LO, Andreasson L, Brånemark PI, Chiapasco M, Gynther G, Finne K, Higuchi KW, Isaksson S, Malevez C, Neukam FW, Sevetz E Jr, Urgell JP, Widmark G, Bolind P. Clinical evaluation of the zygoma implant: 3-year follow-up at 16 clinics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007;65(10):2033-2038. PubMed PMID: 17884535.
Davó R, Felice P, Pistilli R, Barausse C, Marti-Pages C, Ferrer-Fuertes A, Ippolito DR, Esposito M. Immediately loaded zygomatic implants vs conventional dental implants in augmented atrophic maxillae: 1-year post-loading results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018;11(2):145-161. PubMed PMID: 29806663.
de Luna Gomes JM, Lemos CAA, Santiago Junior JF, de Moraes SLD, Goiato MC, Pellizzer EP. Optimal number of implants for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses with a follow-up of at least 5 years: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121(5):766-774.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.06.001