LAUSR

BACKGROUND There is need for more scientific and clinical information on longer-term outcomes of tilted implants compared to implants inserted in an axial position. PURPOSE Comparison of marginal bone loss and implant success after a 5-year follow-up between axial and tilted implants inserted for full-arch maxillary rehabilitation. MATERIAL AND METHODS The retrospective clinical study included 891 patients with 3564 maxillary implants rehabilitated according to the All-on-4 treatment concept. The follow-up time was 5 years. Linear mixed-effect models were performed to analyze the influence of implant orientation (axial/tilted) on marginal bone loss and binary logistic regression to assess the effect of patient characteristics on occurrence of marginal bone loss >2.8 mm. Only those patients with measurements of at least one axial and one tilted implant available were analyzed. This resulted in a data set of 2379 implants (1201 axial, 1178 tilted) in 626 patients (=reduced data set). RESULTS Axial and tilted implants showed comparable mean marginal bone losses of 1.14 ± 0.71 and 1.19 ± 0.82 mm, respectively. Mixed model analysis indicated that marginal bone loss levels at 5 years follow up was not significantly affected by the orientation (axial/tilted) of the implants in the maxillary bone. Smoking and female gender were associated with marginal bone loss >2.8 mm in a logistic regression analysis. Five-year implant success rates were 96%. The occurrence of implant failure showed to be statistically independent from orientation. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of this study and considering a follow-up time of 5 years, it can be concluded that tilted implants behave similarly with regards to marginal bone loss and implant success in comparison to axial implants in full-arch rehabilitation of the maxilla. Longer-term outcomes (10 years +) are needed to verify this result.