A proof of concept on implant-supported bilateral cantilever bridges: The T-Bridge approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61872/sdj-2024-03-04PMID:
38757922Keywords:
Biomechanical phenomena, Dental prosthesis design, Fixed dental prosthesis, Dental stress analysis, Implant-supported dental prosthesisAbstract
The concept of bilateral cantilevers on a single central implant (T-design) for three-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDPs) has not been explored nor tested. This technical hypothesis aimed to explore the feasibility of such an approach as a cost-effective alternative to conventional treatments. Careful considerations regarding implant diameter, length, ideal position, occlusal scheme, and bone remodeling are essential to ensure adequate support, stability, and prevention of complications. In this proof of concept, we present a preliminary case with this novel design to replace missing posterior teeth in a patient with narrow bone conditions. In addition, a series of planned investigations and preliminary results, including preclinical studies, are presented to illustrate our concept and its potential clinical implications. Clinically, after two-year follow-up, healthy and stable peri-implant tissues around the ISFDP exemplarily demonstrated excellent stability, functionality, and comfort, which is supported by acceptable fracture resistance data in vitro, suggesting indeed the practical potential and suitability. Thus, we claim that such a treatment modality has the at least theoretical potential to revolutionize implant dentistry by providing innovative and cost-effective treatment options for patients with partial ISFDPs in very specific cases. Of course, further research and evaluations are necessary to validate the clinical implications of this innovative hypothesis. Implementing the 3-on-1 T-bridge approach in partial ISFDPs could offer a promising alternative to traditional methods. If proven successful, this technique may lead to significant advancements in clinical practice, providing a less invasive cost-effective treatment option.
References
Naenni N, Sahrmann P, Schmidlin PR, et al. Five-year survival of short single-tooth implants (6 mm): a randomizedcontrolled clinical trial. J Dent Res. 2018;97:887-892.
Afrashtehfar KI, Del Fabbro M. Clinical performance of zirconia implants: A meta-review. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:419-426.
Lulic M, Brägger U, Lang NP, Zwahlen M, Salvi GE. Ante's (1926) law revisited: a systematic review on survival rates and complications of fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) on severely reduced periodontal tissue support. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(3):63-72.
Ghanem H, Afrashtehfar KI, Abi-Nader S, Tamimi F. Impact of a "TED-Style" presentation on potential patients' willingness to accept dental implant therapy: a one-group, pre-test post-test study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2015;7:437-445.
Dini C, Borges GA, Costa RC, Magno MB, Maia LC, Barão VAR. Peri-implant and esthetic outcomes of cemented and screw-retained crowns using zirconia abutments in single implant-supported restorations -A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021;32:1143-1158.
Gamborena I, Sasaki Y, Blatz MB. Predictable immediate implant placement and restoration in the esthetic zone. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2021;33:158-172.
Vargas-Moreno VF, Ribeiro MCO, Gomes RS, Faot F, Del Bel Cury AA, Marcello-Machado RM. Clinical performance of short and extrashort dental implants with wide diameter: A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2023.
Ramanauskaite A, Sader R. Esthetic complications in implant dentistry. Periodontol 2000. 2022;88:73-85.
Roccuzzo A, Fanti R, Mancini L, Imber JC, Stähli A, Molinero-Mourelle P, et al. Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions: State of the art and future perspectives. Int J Oral Implantol. 2023;16:13-28.
Crothers AJ, Wassell RW, Jepson N, Thomason JM. The use of cantilever bridges. Dent Update. 1995;22:190-198.
Freitas da Silva EV, Dos Santos DM, Sonego MV, De Luna Gomes JM, Pellizzer EP, Goiato MC. Does the Presence of a Cantilever Influence the Survival and Success of Partial Implant-Supported Dental Prostheses? Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2018;33:815-823.
Ravidà A, Tattan M, Askar H, Barootchi S, Tavelli L, Wang HL. Comparison of three different types of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A long-term retrospective study of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30:295-305.
Frost HM. Bone’s mechanostat: a 2003 update. Anat Rec A Discov Mol Cell Evol Biol. 2003;275:1081-1101.
Chen JH, Liu C, You L, Simmons CA. Boning up on Wolff's Law: mechanical regulation of the cells that make and maintain bone. J Biomech. 2010;43:108-118.
Fu JH, Hsu YT, Wang HL. Identifying occlusal overload and how to deal with it to avoid marginal bone loss around implants. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2012;5:S91-103.
Hsu YT, Fu JH, Al-Hezaimi K, Wang HL. Biomechanical implant treatment complications: a systematic review of clinical studies of implants with at least 1 year of functional loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27:894-904.
Afrashtehfar KI, Afrashtehfar CD. Lack of association between overload and peri-implant tissue loss in healthy conditions. Evid Based Dent. 2016;17:92-93.
Sheridan RA, Decker AM, Plonka AB, Wang HL. The role of occlusion in implant therapy: a comprehensive updated review. Implant Dent. 2016;829-838.
Wang HL, Decker AM. Effects of occlusion on periodontal wound healing. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2018;39:608-612; quiz 613.
Afrashtehfar KI, Moawad RA, F-EdDin AW, Wang HL. Mandibular full-arch fixed prostheses supported by three-dental-implants: A protocol of an overview of reviews. PLoS One. 2022;17:e0265491.
Di Fiore A, Montagner M, Sivolella S, Stellini E, Yilmaz B, Brunello G. Peri-implant bone loss and overload: a systematic review focusing on occlusal analysis through digital and analogic methods. J Clin Med. 2022;11:4812.
Sadowsky SJ. Occlusal overload with dental implants: a review. Int J Implant Dent. 2019;5:29.
Yokoyama S, Wakabayashi N, Shiota M, Ohyama T. The influence of implant location and length on stress distribution for three-unit implant-supported posterior cantilever fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;91:234-240.
Yoda N, Liao Z, Chen J, Sasaki K, Swain M, Li Q. Role of implant configurations supporting three-unit fixed partial denture on mandibular bone response: biological-data-based finite element study. J Oral Rehabil. 2016;43:692-701.
Lü J, Liu C, Lan J, Gao X. [Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effect of the location and diameter of implants on the stress distribution in three-unit implant-supported posterior cantilever fixed partial dentures under dynamic loads]. Hua XiKou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2013;31:552-556.
Coello RJ, Aita-Holmes C, Dimalanta WG, Wenger K. An in vitro trial on the effect of arch form on connector size requirements in long span anterior zirconia fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthodont. 2022.
Karasan D, Canay S, Sailer I, Att W. Zirconia cantilever fixed dental prostheses supported by one or two implants: an in vitro study on mechanical stability and technical outcomes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022;37:748-755.
Kobari H, Yoda N, Chen J, Kawata T, Sasaki K. An in vivo study on load distribution in different implant configurations for supporting fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31:1049-1057.
Romeo E, Storelli S. Systematic review of the survival rate and the biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of fixed dental prostheses with cantilevers on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean of 5 years follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:39-49.
Storelli S, Del Fabbro M, Scanferla M, Palandrani G, Romeo E. Implant supported cantilevered fixed dental rehabilitations in partially edentulous patients: Systematic review of the literature. Part I. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:253-274.
Kim P, Ivanovski S, Latcham N, Mattheos N. The impact of cantilevers on biological and technical success outcomes of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. A retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:175-184.
Zumstein K, Waller T, Hämmerle CHF, Jung RE, Benic G, Mühlemann S. Clinical performance of monolithic zirconia crowns on titanium-zirconium reduced-diameter implants in the molar area: Interim data at three years of a randomized controlled trial. Clin OralImplants Res. 2023;34:1354-1362.
Biel P, Biel T, Chappuis V, Raabe C. Re-osseointegration of a Dental Implant with Aseptic Loosening after Occlusal Correction: a Case Report. Swiss Dent J. 2022 Sep 5;132(9):599-606.
Mühlemann S. Implant-Prosthodontic Design in the Posterior Edentulous Maxilla. Forum Implantologicum. 2017;13(1):45675.
Mühlemann S, Truninger TC, Stawarczyk B, Hämmerle CH, Sailer I. Bending moments of zirconia and titanium implant abutments supporting all-ceramic crowns after aging. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:74-81.
Molinero-Mourelle P, Abou-Ayash S, Brägger U, et al. Load bearing capacity of 3-unit screw-retained implant-supported fixed dental prostheses with a mesial and distal cantilever on a single implant: A comparative in vitro study. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2024;151:106395.
