Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Prospective evaluation of implants connected to teeth.

Michael S Block1, Denise Lirette, Diana Gardiner

  • 1Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Louisiana State University, School of Dentistry, New Orleans 70119, USA. mblock@lsuhsc.edu

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants
|August 17, 2002
PubMed
Summary

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Procalcitonin to Guide 7 vs 14 Days of Antibiotics in Bloodstream Infections: A Secondary Analysis of the BALANCE Trial.

JAMA network open·2026
Same author

Screwworm reemergence, illegal cattle movements, and emerging risks to wildlife and protected areas in Mesoamerica.

Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology·2026
Same author

Metallic charge transport in conjugated molecular bilayers.

Nature electronics·2026
Same author

Strengthening biodiversity conservation and One Health through ranger monitoring of wildlife health in protected areas.

Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology·2026
Same author

Optimal Dose and Safety of Intravenous Favipiravir in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Dose-Escalating, Randomized Controlled Phase Ib Study.

Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics·2026
Same author

Foundations for Long-Term Implant Success.

Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery : official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons·2026

Connecting dental implants to teeth rigidly or non-rigidly showed similar implant survival rates. However, tooth intrusion and increased unscheduled visits suggest considering alternatives to tooth-implant connections.

Area of Science:

  • Dental Implantology
  • Prosthodontics
  • Periodontology

Background:

  • Fixed partial dentures (FPDs) can be restored using implants or natural teeth as abutments.
  • Cross-arch connections between implants and teeth are a treatment option, but their long-term effects require investigation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the clinical outcomes of rigidly versus non-rigidly connecting implants to abutment teeth in a cross-arch model.
  • To assess crestal bone loss, tooth and implant mobility, probing depths, soft tissue indices, and intrusion over a minimum 5-year follow-up period.

Main Methods:

  • A prospective clinical trial involving 30 patients restored with 3-unit FPDs, connecting either rigidly or non-rigidly to a mandibular abutment tooth.
  • Long-term follow-up (≥5 years) included assessments of bone levels, mobility, probing depth, soft tissue health, and intrusion.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • No significant differences in crestal bone loss or mobility were observed between rigid and non-rigid implant-tooth connections.
  • Teeth connected to implants showed significant differences between methods, with higher rates of intrusion and fractures in the non-rigid group.
  • The non-rigid group required more unscheduled visits, and implant survival was comparable between groups, though one rigid-side implant was removed.

Conclusions:

  • While both rigid and non-rigid attachments demonstrated acceptable implant survival, significant issues arose with abutment teeth, particularly intrusion and fractures.
  • The high incidence of complications suggests that alternative treatment modalities, avoiding direct connections between implants and teeth, may be more favorable.