Laser-welded titanium frameworks supported by implants in the partially edentulous mandible: a 10-year comparative follow-up study.
BACKGROUND
Comparative long-term knowledge of different framework materials in the partially edentulous implant patient is not available.


OBJECTIVE
To report and compare 10-year data on free-standing implant-supported partial prostheses with laser-welded titanium (test) and conventional gold alloy (control) frameworks.


METHODS
Altogether, 52 partially edentulous patients were consecutively provided with laser-welded prostheses (n = 60) in the partially edentulous lower jaw (test group). A control group of 52 randomly selected patients with gold alloy castings (n = 60) was used for comparison. Clinical and radiographic 10-year data were retrospectively collected and evaluated for both groups.


RESULTS
The overall 10-year implant cumulative survival rate (CSR) was 93.0% (loaded implants, 96.4%), with a 10-year implant CSR of 91.5 and 94.7% for test and control implants, respectively (p > .05). Out of a total of 22 lost implants, 17 implants (77.3%) were shorter than 10 mm. The overall 10-year prosthesis CSR was 93.7%, with a corresponding 10-year CSR of 88.4 and 100% for test and control groups, respectively (p < .05). Average 10-year bone loss was 0.46 mm (SD 0.47) and 0.69 mm (SD 0.53) for the test and control groups (p < .001), respectively. Only 1% of the implants had >3 mm accumulated bone loss after 10 years. Altogether, 10 of the prostheses in both groups had implant component mechanical problems (8.3%). None of the frameworks or implants fractured, but more fractures of porcelain veneers were observed in the test group (p < .05).


CONCLUSIONS
The protocol of implant treatment in the partially edentulous jaw functioned well during 10 years, although prosthodontic maintenance was required. However, laser-welded titanium frameworks presented more problems as compared with gold alloy frameworks. More loaded implants were lost (p < .05), and higher incidence of porcelain chipping was noted in the test group (p < .05). However, bone loss was on an average lower for the test group during the 10 years of follow-up (p < .001).
Ortorp
Anders
A
The Brånemark Clinic, Public Dental Health Service, Göteborg, Sweden. anders.ortorp@vgregion.se
Jemt
Torsten
T
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D016301:Alveolar Bone Loss / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D015921:Dental Implants; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D019094:Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D012994:Dental Soldering / Q000379:methods; D003801:Dental Veneers; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006047:Gold Alloys; D006801:Humans; D007576:Jaw, Edentulous, Partially / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D007834:Lasers; D015993:Life Tables; D008297:Male; D008334:Mandible; D008875:Middle Aged; D011859:Radiography; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D014025:Titanium; D014896:Welding / Q000379:methods
D015921:Dental Implants; D006047:Gold Alloys; D014025:Titanium