Implant stability, tissue conditions, and patient self-evaluation after treatment with osseointegrated implants in the posterior mandible.
BACKGROUND
Implant treatment in the posterior mandible is considered challenging because of bone resorption and the presence of the inferior alveolar nerve, which may result in the use of short implants.


OBJECTIVE
To evaluate implant stability, tissue conditions, and patient opinion after treatment with implant-supported bridges in the posterior mandible.


METHODS
Thirty-four patients treated with implant-supported bridges in the posterior mandible according to a two-stage protocol were clinically and radiographically examined and interviewed after a mean functional time of 3.9 years. One hundred five Brånemark implants (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) were placed in premolar and molar regions to support 40 bridges. Twenty-eight implants were placed anterior to the mental foramen, and 77 implants were placed posterior to the mental foramen. Bridges were supported either by two or by three implants. After 2 to 6 years, the bridges were removed to analyze the resonance frequency of the implants with the use of a special instrument (Osstell instrument, Integration Diagnostics AB, Gothenburg, Sweden), and an implant stability quotient (ISQ) was recorded for each implant.


RESULTS
One implant was lost. An ISQ range of 59 to 90 (mean, 70.05) expressed stability of fully integrated implants in the posterior mandible. Significantly higher (p < .024) ISQ values were found in implants in three-implant bridges when compared with implants in two-implant bridges. There were no differences in ISQ values between molars/premolars, implant types, implant widths, implant lengths, anchoring depth, or uni- or bilateral mandibular bridges. Good mucosal health in the periimplant soft tissue and minor bone resorption around the implants were observed. Patients were generally very satisfied with the treatment outcome.


CONCLUSIONS
High implant stability can be reached in the posterior mandible. The implants were more stable in three-implant bridges than in two-implant bridges. The patients were highly satisfied with the treatment, and few complications were seen.
Farzad
Payam
P
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Central Hospital, Västerås, Sweden. payamfarzad@hotmail.com
Andersson
Lars
L
Gunnarsson
Sten
S
Sharma
Prem
P
D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D000044:Dental Abutments; D003758:Dental Implantation, Endosseous; D015921:Dental Implants; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D017268:Dental Prosthesis Retention; D019094:Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; D003779:Denture Design; D003829:Denture, Partial; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007576:Jaw, Edentulous, Partially / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000534:rehabilitation / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D008334:Mandible / Q000601:surgery*; D008875:Middle Aged; D016348:Osseointegration; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011859:Radiography; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D014732:Vibration
D015921:Dental Implants