Six-year clinical outcomes of implant-supported acrylic vs. ceramic superstructures according to the All-on-4 treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the edentulous maxilla

Abstract

The aim of the current study was to document the long-term clinical results of the use of two prosthetic techniques for the rehabilitation of completely edentulous maxillae according to the “All-on-Four” concept: Fixed, screw-retained prosthesis mounted on a chrome-molybdenum framework with (1) metal-ceramic veneers and (2) Acrylic prosthesis with acrylic resin prosthetic teeth. A total of 34 patients were assigned to subgroups according to their own preference of the superstructure type (ceramics [n: 17] or acrylic resin [n: 17]). Prosthetic complications, marginal bone loss, plaque accumulation, bleeding on probing, bite force and oral-health-related quality of life were assessed over a period of 6 years. Marginal bone loss around implants of the ceramic group remained well within the limits for ‘success’, as defined by the 2007 Pisa consensus over the time (1.43 ± 0.35 mm). However, marginal bone loss was significantly more pronounced around the implants in the acrylic group (2.15 ± 0.30) and the difference between two groups was statistically significant (p: 0.00). Bleeding on probing and plaque accumulation showed also positive correlation with marginal bone loss. Both acrylic and ceramic suprastructures appeared to be equivalent after 6 years; however, ceramic suprastructures revealed superior clinical results in terms of bone loss and plaque accumulation. Current study determines the long-term clinical outcomes of different prosthetic management alternatives in All-on-Four and aids to increase dental professionals’ ability to meet the patients’ expectations.