PURPOSE: To compare the 5-year clinical and radiological outcomes of @entity1 rehabilitated with four or six implants placed using guided surgery and immediate function concept. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty @entity1 randomly received four (All-on-4) or six (All-on-6) immediately loaded implants, placed using guided surgery, to support a cross-arch fixed dental prosthesis. Outcome measures were survival rates of implants and prostheses, complications, peri-implant marginal @entity604 , and periodontal parameters. RESULTS: No drop-out occurred. Seven implants failed at the 5-year follow-up examination: six in the All-on-6 group (5%) and one in the All-on-4 group (1.25%), with no statistically significant differences (p   =   .246). No prosthetic failure occurred. Both group experienced some technical and biologic complications with no statistically significant differences between groups (p   =   .501). All-on-4 treatment concept demonstrated a trend of more complications during the entire follow-up period. A trend of more implant failure was experienced for the All-on-6 treatment concept. @entity604 ( @entity604 ) from baseline to the 5-year follow-up was not statistically different between All-on-4 (1.71        0.42   mm) and All-on-6 (1.51        0.36   mm) groups (p   =   .12). For periodontal parameters, there were no differences between groups (p   >   .05). CONCLUSION: Both approaches may represent a predictable treatment option for the rehabilitation of complete edentulous @entity1 in the medium term. Longer randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these results.

Five-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing XXXX Rehabilitated with Immediately Loaded Maxillary Cross-Arch Fixed Dental Prosthesis Supported by Four or Six Implants Placed Using Guided Surgery.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients'] @entity604 :: ('MESH:D016301', 'Disease') :: ['bone loss', 'Marginal bone loss', 'MBL']
@entity1 :: (9606,Species) :: ['Patients']
