Authors: M.Sc. Dr. Irina Trajkovska Zareska, PhD Dr Gordana Kovachevska

DOI: 10.62636/EVLC3289

Keywords: connecting teeth and implants, fixed cemented restorations, success rate, biological and technical complications.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Connecting a natural tooth with an implant is considered a risky treatment modality due to their different mobility under occlusal forces, which needs further investigations.
Aim: To investigate the success rate of implants, natural teeth and cemented fixed tooth implant-borne dental prosthesis (TIFD) in maxilla and mandible, through analyzing of their technical and biological parameters.
Materials and methods: In 10 patients, 15 implants are inserted and connected with natural teeth, with 12 metal-ceramic TIFD, cemented with glassionomer cement. The biological parameters on teeth and implants such as radiographic marginal bone loss, plaque index, index of bleeding on probing and periodontal and peri-implant pocket depth were measured. The technical parameters of implants and dental restorations were noted.
Results: After a medium period of follow-up of 6 ± 3 years, 12 metal ceramic TIFD in 10 patients were reevaluated. Natural teeth don’t show any biological complications, and their success rate is 100%. The survival rate of all 15 implants was 100%. The investigated sample showed mean peri-implant bone loss of 0.6mm mesially and 0.5mm distally, and the average pocket depth was 1mm. Peri-implantitis symptoms were found in 1 patient, which made the implant success rate 93.3%. There are no signs of technical complications at implant level. Fracture of pink porcelain was found in 1 metal-ceramic restoration, which lowered the overall success rate of the TIFDPs to 91.6%.
Conclusion: In the limits of our study, we can conclude that the cemented TIFDP connecting teeth and implants are safe solutions for the natural teeth in anterior and posterior region in maxilla and mandible. Nevertheless, due to the possibility of technical and biological complications at implant and restoration level, it is advisable to use this modality as a second treatment option to implantimplant restoration, only in cases with anatomical and socio-economic limits of the patients.