We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30 (2015), No. 4     20. Aug. 2015
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30 (2015), No. 4  (20.08.2015)

Page 918-924, doi:10.11607/jomi.3816, PubMed:26252044

Three-Year Analysis of Fixed and Removable Telescopic Attachment-Retained Implant-Supported Dental Prostheses: Survival and Need for Maintenance
Rehmann, Peter / Rudel, Karina / Podhorsky, Anke / Wöstmann, Bernd
Purpose: The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of fixed implant-supported dental prostheses (FISDPs) and removable ISDPs (RISDPs) retained by telescopic attachments, the factors influencing survival, and the type and number of maintenance treatments required during the observation period.
Materials and Methods: This retrospective clinical study is based on patients who were provided with ISDPs between 2004 and 2010. Patient sex, type of prosthesis, location, opposing dentition, and the effect of continuous follow-up on the probability of a favorable outcome, as well as the number of maintenance treatments, were analyzed. A statistical analysis was performed using the Kaplan- Meier method.
Results: A sample of 233 patients with 157 FISDPs and 76 RISDPs supported by a total of 567 implants was randomized and included in the analysis. The mean observation period was 15.9 ± 15.4 months (maximum, 66.0 months). During the observation period, 3.9% of prostheses (7/157 FISDPs and 2/76 RISDPs) ceased to function and 2.3% of implants (13 implants) were lost. The mean survival time was 59.7 ± 2.3 months, with a survival probability of 90.2% after 3 years. Prostheses in the mandible showed significantly higher survival rates than those in the maxilla. Maintenance treatments had to be performed at an earlier stage for patients with RISDPs than for patients with FISDPs. In patients with a conventional removable prosthesis in the opposing arch, the time until maintenance was needed was significantly shorter.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of a retrospective study, it can be concluded that the FISDPs and RISDPs show equally good survival rates after 3 years in function. RISDPs showed a greater and earlier need for maintenance treatments during the first years in function.

Keywords: dental implants, dental prosthesis, dental prosthesis failure, implant-supported dental prosthesis, survival analysis