Two-Year Follow-up of Early- and Conventionally-Placed Two-Stage Implants Supporting Fixed Prostheses

Bekcioglu B., Sagirkaya E., Karasoy D., Cehreli M.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, vol.27, no.6, pp.1554-1559, 2012 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 27 Issue: 6
  • Publication Date: 2012
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Page Numbers: pp.1554-1559
  • Hacettepe University Affiliated: Yes


Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare the biologic and prosthetic outcomes of early- and conventionally-placed implants supporting fixed prostheses. Materials and Methods: Using inclusion/exclusion criteria, early- and conventionally-placed implant patient groups, rehabilitated with Branemark System implants supporting fixed prostheses for 2 years, were selected from the patient archives. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, time-dependent marginal bone loss, Plaque Index, peri-implant infection, Bleeding Index scores, and prosthetic complications data of the groups were compared. Results: A total of 212 implants were placed in early-placed (n = 42, 101 implants) and conventionally-placed (n = 45, 111 implants) patient groups and 5 implants failed during the 2-year follow-up. The 1- and 2-year Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities of early-placed (0.98) and conventionally-placed (0.973) groups were comparable (P =.735). The 6-month to 2-year marginal bone loss in the conventionally-placed group was higher than in the early-placed group (P < .05). There were differences between groups on soft tissue scores between the 2 years of function (P < .05). The frequency of prosthetic complications was very low and comparable in both groups (P = .476). Conclusions: Early- and conventionally-placed implants supporting fixed prostheses showed comparable clinical outcomes during the 2-year follow-up, although the marginal bone loss was higher in the latter group. INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC vertical bar IMPLANTS 2012;27:1554-1559