Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 20, 2026
A Procedure for Implanting Organized Arrays of Microwires for Single-unit Recordings in Awake, Behaving Animals
Published on: February 14, 2014
Implant-supported 2-unit cantilevers compared with single crowns on adjacent implants: A comparative retrospective
Andrea Roccuzzo1, Simon Storgård Jensen2, Nils Worsaae3
1Research Fellow, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital (Rigshospitalet), Copenhagen, Denmark; Resident, Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Private practice, Turin, Italy.
Statement Of Problem:
The replacement of 2 adjacent missing teeth remains a clinical challenge. Among the different treatment options, the use of a single implant to support a 2-unit cantilever fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) has been proposed in situations of limited mesiodistal space, even though the evidence for its use is low.
Purpose:
The purpose of this retrospective comparative case series was to evaluate hard and soft peri-implant tissues in patients with 2 adjacent missing teeth in the anterior area (incisors or canines) rehabilitated with implant-supported 2-unit cantilevers or single crowns on adjacent implants.
Material And Methods:
Twenty-three from a cohort of 34 patients rehabilitated with 2-implant systems between September 2006 and November 2015 with 2-unit cantilever FDPs (test group) (n=16) or 2 adjacent dental implants supporting single crowns (control group) (n=7) were available for follow-up. At the baseline and follow-up examinations, the implant survival rate, peri-implant probing pocket depth, marginal bone level (MBL), as well as papilla scores and prosthetic outcomes from the Copenhagen Index Score were recorded and evaluated.
Results:
One implant in the control group was lost during the observation period, leading to an overall implant survival rate of 97%. Mean peri-implant probing depths were low (≤5 mm) in both the groups. Stable marginal bone levels were detected around adjacent implants and around implants supporting cantilevers. Medium to high esthetic scores were obtained in most patients. Papilla index scores were high (score 1 and 2) in both the groups. Finally, no technical complications were recorded.
Conclusions:
The use of a single-implant-supported 2-unit cantilever FDP in anterior sites is a valid treatment option compared with 2 adjacent implants, especially when the available mesiodistal space is limited.
More Related Videos
04:35Author Spotlight: Simulation and Analysis of the Temperature Rise of Ring Main Unit Equipment
Published on: July 5, 2024
10:00Techniques for Processing Eyes Implanted with a Retinal Prosthesis for Localized Histopathological Analysis: Part 2 Epiretinal Implants with Retinal Tacks
Published on: February 14, 2015
Related Concept Videos
02:26Comparing Copy Number Variations and SNPs
Copy number variations or CNVs are the structural variations that cover more than 1kb of DNA sequence. The single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), on the other hand, is a single nucleotide change or a point mutation that is found in more than 1%...
01:20Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
01:09Comparing Experimental Results: Student's t-Test
02:24Comparative Excretory Systems
02:16Comparing Mitochondrial, Chloroplast, and Prokaryotic Genomes
02:34Comparing Intermolecular Forces: Melting Point, Boiling Point, and Miscibility
Temporary attractive forces like dispersion are present in all molecules, whether they are polar or nonpolar. They...