Frameworks made of carbon fibre-reinforced composites (CFRC) seem to be a viable alternative to traditional metal frameworks in implant prosthodontics. CFRC provide stiffness, rigidity and optimal biocompatibility. The aim of the present prospective study was to compare carbon fibre frameworks versus metal frameworks used to rigidly splint implants in full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations. Forty-two patients (test group) were rehabilitated with full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations of the upper jaw (total: 170 implants) following the Columbus Bridge Protocol with four to six implants with distal tilted implants. All patients were treated with resin screw-retained full-arch prostheses endowed with carbon fibre frameworks. The mean follow-up was 22 months (range: 18–24). Differences in the absolute change of bone resorption over time between the two implant sides (mesial and distal) were assessed performing a Mann–Whitney U-test. The outcomes were statistically compared with those of patients rehabilitated following the same protocol but using metal frameworks (control group: 34 patients with 163 implants – data reported in Tealdo, Menini, Bevilacqua, Pera, Pesce, Signori, Pera, Int J Prosthodont, 27, 2014, 207). Ten implants failed in the control group (6·1%); none failed in the test group (P = 0·002). A statistically significant difference in the absolute change of bone resorption around the implants was found between the two groups (P = 0·004), with greater mean peri-implant bone resorption in the control group (1 mm) compared to the test group (0·8 mm). Carbon fibre frameworks may be considered as a viable alternative to the metal ones and showed less marginal bone loss around implants and a greater implant survival rate during the observation period.

Carbon fibre versus metal framework in full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations of the maxilla – a cohort clinical study

Pera, F.;Pesce, P.;Tealdo, T.;Pera, P.;Menini, M.
2017

Abstract

Frameworks made of carbon fibre-reinforced composites (CFRC) seem to be a viable alternative to traditional metal frameworks in implant prosthodontics. CFRC provide stiffness, rigidity and optimal biocompatibility. The aim of the present prospective study was to compare carbon fibre frameworks versus metal frameworks used to rigidly splint implants in full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations. Forty-two patients (test group) were rehabilitated with full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations of the upper jaw (total: 170 implants) following the Columbus Bridge Protocol with four to six implants with distal tilted implants. All patients were treated with resin screw-retained full-arch prostheses endowed with carbon fibre frameworks. The mean follow-up was 22 months (range: 18–24). Differences in the absolute change of bone resorption over time between the two implant sides (mesial and distal) were assessed performing a Mann–Whitney U-test. The outcomes were statistically compared with those of patients rehabilitated following the same protocol but using metal frameworks (control group: 34 patients with 163 implants – data reported in Tealdo, Menini, Bevilacqua, Pera, Pesce, Signori, Pera, Int J Prosthodont, 27, 2014, 207). Ten implants failed in the control group (6·1%); none failed in the test group (P = 0·002). A statistically significant difference in the absolute change of bone resorption around the implants was found between the two groups (P = 0·004), with greater mean peri-implant bone resorption in the control group (1 mm) compared to the test group (0·8 mm). Carbon fibre frameworks may be considered as a viable alternative to the metal ones and showed less marginal bone loss around implants and a greater implant survival rate during the observation period.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11567/887584
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 4
  • Scopus 11
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 10
social impact