Category Archives: Retrospective Study

The Retread: A Retrospective Analysis of 205 Implant-Supported Fixed Hybrid Prostheses

Article PDF: The Retread: A Retrospective Analysis of 205 Implant-Supported Fixed Hybrid Prostheses

The International Journal of Prosthodontics, March/April 2016 – Vol. 29 Issue 2, 126-131 

Thomas J. Balshi, DDS, PhD, Glenn J. Wolfinger, DMD, Stephen G. Alfano, DDS, Stephen F. Balshi, MBE

Purpose:
Acrylic resin teeth on fixed implant prostheses are subject to time-dependent wear. The purpose of this retrospective analysis is to evaluate and describe the management of such wear in the context of selected variables-patient gender and age, dental arch location, and opposing dentition. The clinical and dental laboratory process to replace the worn teeth is defined as a retread.

Materials and Methods:
A retrospective database review from a single private prosthodontic practice was carried out on all patients who had undergone a retread procedure. The patient pool included 205 arches in 194 patients (70 in men, 135 in women) with a mean age of 57.4 years (range: 19.9 to 80.5 years). The retread procedure is described.

Results:
The mean time between final prosthesis delivery and retread was 7.8 years  (range: 1.1 to 22.9 years). Statistical analysis was significant according to dental arch and opposing dentition. A statistical
difference was also noted in patients undergoing multiple retread procedures, with a reduction in time between the subsequent procedures.

Conclusion:
Acrylic resin components of implant-
supported hybrid prostheses wear over time and are influenced by a combination of the nature of the opposing dentition and patient habits. The dental laboratory process to retread the implant-
supported framework is important for long-term patient care and maintenance of an appropriate vertical dimension of occlusion . lnt J Prosthodont 2016;29126-131. doi: 10.11607/r1p.4277.

A Retrospective Analysis of 800 Brånemark System Implants Following the All-on-Four™ Protocol

Thomas J. Balshi, DDS, PhD, FACP, Glenn J. Wolfinger, DMD, FACP,  Robert W. Slauch, BS, & Stephen F. Balshi, MBE

J Prosthodont. The American College of Prosthodontists J Prosthodont. 23 (2014) 83–88.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate implant survival rates in patients treated with the All-on-Four™ protocol according to edentulous jaws, gender, and implant orientation (tilted vs. axial). Materials and Methods: All Brånemark System implants placed in patients following the All-on-Four™ protocol in a single private practice were separated into multiple classifications (maxilla vs. mandible; male vs. female; tilted vs. axial) by retrospective patient chart review. Inclusion criteria consisted of any Brånemark System implant placed with the All-on-Four™  protocol from the clinical inception (May 2005) until December 2011. Life tables were constructed to determine cumulative implant survival rates (CSR). The arches, genders, and implant orientations were statistically compared with ANOVA.

Results: One hundred fifty-two patients, comprising 200 arches (800 implants) from May 2005 until December 2011, were included in the study. Overall implant CSR was 97.3% (778 of 800). Two hundred eighty-nine of 300 maxillary implants and 489 of 500 mandibular implants survived, for CSRs of 96.3% and 97.8%, respectively. In male patients, 251 of 256 implants (98.1%) remain in function while 527 of 544 implants (96.9%) in female patients survived. Regarding implant orientation, 389 of 400 tilted implants and 389 of 400 axial implants osseointegrated, for identical CSRs of 97.3%. All comparisons were found to be statistically insignificant. The prosthesis survival rate was 99.0%.

Conclusions: The results from this study suggest that edentulous jaws, gender, and implant orientation are not significant parameters when formulating an All-on-Four™ treatment plan. The high CSRs for each variable analyzed demonstrate the All-on- Four™ treatment as a viable alternative to more extensive protocols for rehabilitating the edentulous maxilla or mandible.

Article in PDF