Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 31, 2025
Real-Time Dynamic Navigation System for the Precise Quad-Zygomatic Implant Placement in a Patient with a Severely Atrophic Maxilla
Published on: October 18, 2021
Rehabilitation of distal extension maxillary ridges with fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses:
Ahmed Mahmoud El Haron1,2, Osama Mohammed Raouf Askar1,3, Wael Said Ahmed1,4
1Faculty of Dentistry, University of Mansoura, Mansoura, Egypt.
Purpose:
This trial evaluated clinical outcomes of fixed and removable implant-supported prostheses for rehabilitation of atrophied distal extension maxillary ridges.
Materials And Methods:
A total of 54 participants with atrophied distal extension maxillary ridges were randomly assigned into three groups (n = 18/group). Group I (SLF); participants treated with fixed restoration supported by three long implants after sinus augmentation, Group II (SF); participants treated with fixed restoration supported by one long and two short implants, and Group III (OD): participants treated with removable partial denture assisted by one long implant that was placed mesial to maxillary sinus (IARPD). Modified plaque index (MPI), modified gingival index (MGI), pocket depth (PD), implant stability (IS), and crestal bone loss (CBL) were measured after prosthesis insertion (T0), 6 (T6), and 12 months (T12) after insertion. Patient satisfaction was measured at T12 using a visual analog scale (VAS).
Results:
The implant survival rates were 96.8%, 92.4%, and 84.6% for SLF, SF, and OD groups respectively. The SLF recorded the highest MPI, MGI, PD, and IS values, followed by the SF, and the OD showed the lowest values. The OD recorded the highest CBL followed by the SF and the SLF showed the lowest CBL. With exception of satisfaction with surgery and cleaning, SLF and SF groups recorded significantly higher patient satisfaction than the OD for all VAS questions.
Conclusion:
Fixed restorations supported with either long or short implants were associated with improved implant stability, reduced bone loss, and increased patient satisfaction compared to implant-assisted RPDs. However, implant-assisted RPDs were associated with more favorable peri-implant soft tissue health and increased satisfaction with surgery, healing, and cleaning.
