Skip to main content
Erschienen in:

Open Access 01.12.2023 | Research

Difference in marginal bone loss around implants between short implant-supported partial fixed prostheses with and without cantilever: a retrospective clinical study

verfasst von: Josef Al-Kilani, Sedef Al-Kilani, Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic

Erschienen in: International Journal of Implant Dentistry | Ausgabe 1/2023

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the influence of cantilever prosthetic arm on the marginal bone loss (MBL) over time around dental implants supporting short fixed partial dentures (FPDs), in a record-based retrospective study.

Methods

All cases of 3-unit implant-supported FPDs, supported by 2–3 implants, from the database of cases treated at one specialist clinic were considered for inclusion. Only implants with a minimum of 36 months of radiological follow-up were considered. Univariate linear regression models were used to compare MBL over time between 12 clinical covariates, after which a linear mixed-effects model was built.

Results

One-hundred-thirty-nine patients (64 men, 75 women) with 164 3-unit implant-supported FPDs (333 implants supporting non-cantilevered FPDs, 94 supporting cantilevered FPDs) were included in the study. The patients were followed up clinically and radiographically for a mean of 154.1 ± 78.0 (min–max, 37.3–364.6) and 132.9 ± 77.3 months (min–max, 36.8–329.9), respectively. The total number of marginal bone level double measurements (mesial and distal sides of each implant) was 2909. FPDs with cantilever presented an estimated greater MBL over time compared to FPDs without cantilever. Bruxism, sex (women), implant (modified) surface, and (poor) bone quality were also associated with higher MBL over time.

Conclusions

The use of a cantilever extension is suggested to negatively affect the bone marginal level over time around implants supporting 3-unit FPDs. Due to the small difference of the estimated MBL over long periods of follow-up between the groups, it is a matter of debate if the observed negative effect may be of clinical significance.

Graphical Abstract

Hinweise
Josef Al-Kilani and Sedef Al-Kilani have contributed equally to this work.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
FEA
Finite-element analysis
FPD
Fixed partial denture
MBL
Marginal bone loss

Introduction

Cantilevers are used to extend implant-supported fixed prosthesis beyond the region directly supported by teeth or implants. In the case of rehabilitation with dental implants, the advantage of the extension of dental prostheses with cantilevers include the reduction in the cost of the rehabilitation, allowing for more prosthetic units without the need of an extra supporting implant. Moreover, cantilevers can also be used to avoid grafting in both the maxillary sinus and posterior mandible [1]. With the same purpose, cantilevers can also be directed anteriorly.
However, it has been suggested that the use of cantilever in implant-supported restorations may increase the risk of mechanical complications, prosthesis failure, and even implant failure [2, 3]. Cantilever may also be associated with excessive stress in the marginal bone around implants. Finite-element analysis (FEA) and photoelastic studies have suggested that stress values along the cervical region in the alveolar bone around implants increased with an increased cantilever length [47]. It is possible that excessive pressure applied to the bone in areas of high strain concentrations could cause osseous micro-fractures. In addition, excessive force concentrations may cause bone loss around implants [8, 9].
Some clinical studies also looked into the relationship between bone loss around dental implants and cantilever, with conflicting results. Studies with follow-ups of about 5 years failed to demonstrate that the presence of cantilever extensions in a fixed partial denture (FPD) had an effect on peri-implant bone loss [10, 11], the same conclusion reached in 3-year clinical that investigated a single implant to support a two-unit cantilever fixed dental prosthesis [12]. On the other hand, the marginal bone level around implants supporting fixed prostheses was observed to be negatively affected by the presence of a cantilever, in a 3-year retrospective clinical study [13]. The authors of the study recommended that short and/or narrow implants should be preferred over cantilever extensions in cases of limiting anatomic conditions. Another retrospective study, with a mean follow-up of 51 months, observed that the length of the cantilever arm was positively correlated bone loss [1]. Therefore, a general consensus still does not exist.
The aim of the present retrospective study was to further investigate the influence of the cantilever prosthetic arm on the marginal bone loss (MBL) over time around dental implants supporting short partial fixed prostheses, in a long-term follow-up period.

Materials and methods

Objective

The aim of the present retrospective study was to investigate the influence of cantilever prosthetic arm on the marginal bone loss (MBL) around dental implants supporting short partial fixed prostheses.

Hypothesis

The null hypothesis of the present study was that there will be no significant difference in MBL between 3-unit implant-supported partial fixed prostheses with and without cantilever prosthetic arm, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference.

Materials

This retrospective study included patients treated with dental implants during the period 1980–2018 at one specialist clinic (Clinic for Prosthodontics, Centre of Dental Specialist Care, Malmö, Sweden). This study was based on data collection from patients’ dental records. The implants were placed by specialist dentists in oral surgery, and dentists performing the prosthetic treatment were specialists in prosthodontics.
The study was approved by the regional Ethical Committee, Lund, Sweden (Dnr 2014/598; Dnr 2015/72). The present retrospective study followed the STROBE guidelines for observational studies [14] and was registered at https://​clinicaltrials.​gov under the registration number NCT02369562. The investigation was conducted according to the principles embodied in the Helsinki Declaration of 1964 for biomedical research involving human subjects, as amended in 2013 [15].

Definitions

A cantilever prosthetic arm was defined as a pontic which is retained and supported only on one side by the other prosthetic units which are supported by implants.
MBL was defined as loss, in an apical direction, of alveolar bone marginally adjacent to the dental implant, in relation to the marginal bone level initially detected after the implant was surgically placed [16].
For this study, patients smoking a minimum of one cigarette per day (an everyday smoker [17]) were classified as smokers, established at the clinical appointment of the patient when the anamnesis was performed.
The diagnosis of bruxism was established in a previous study [18], in which the patients of the aforementioned database (which the present cohort group of patients was selected from, according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria) suspected to be bruxers were called back for one clinical appointment to get the minimum information to diagnose the patients as ‘probable bruxers’ (self-report/anamnesis + clinical examination).
As the standard protocol in the clinic, the patients’ dental hygiene was followed up by a dental hygienist within 6 months after the final implant-supported/retained restoration. Each patient then attended a dental hygiene recall program based on individual needs.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Only implant-supported FPDs with three prosthetic units, either supported by two or three implants, were considered for inclusion. FPDs supported by two implants could had either a prosthetic pontic replacing a tooth between the implants, or a prosthetic arm cantilever (Fig. 1). Only implants not lost and with baseline radiographs taken within 12 months after implant placement and with a minimum of 36 months of radiological follow-up were considered for the analysis of MBL. Negative values of MBL corresponded to bone loss.
Patients with all modern types of threaded implants with cylindrical or conical design were included. Zygomatic implants were not included in the study, as well as implants detected in radiographies, but without basic information registered in the patients’ records.
Patients were excluded if they had history of periodontitis and/or were treated for periodontal disease. It is important to take note that as standard, all patients receiving implants at the Specialist Clinic for Prosthodontics were periodontally healthy at the time of implant installation. Patients with either a history or with signs of periodontal disease were treated at the Specialist Clinic for Periodontology, where they later could or not receive dental implants, according to individual needs/indications. These patients were not included in the present study.

Data collection

The data were directly entered into a SPSS file (SPSS software, version 28, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) as the dental records of the patients were being read, and it consisted of several implant-, site-, and patient-related factors. The following data were collected from the patients’ dental records:
  • Implant-related factors: implant diameter (three groups: < 3.75, 3.75, and > 3.75 mm), system, and implant surface (turned/machined, modified);
  • Site-related factors: implant region, implant jaw location (maxilla/mandible), anterior or posterior location of the implant (sites from right canine to left canine teeth were considered anterior location), bone quantity and quality of the implant site at the day of the implant installation, according to a classification [19];
  • Surgery-related factors: open or flapless surgery, immediate installation in extraction socket or in healed site;
  • Prosthetic-related factors: prosthesis fixation (screwed, cemented);
  • Patient-related factors: patient’s sex, age of the patient at the implant insertion surgery, diabetes, and behavioral history (bruxism, smoking);
  • Time-related factors: implant and prosthesis installation date, clinical and radiological follow-up time.

Evaluation of radiographs

Reproducible intra-oral periapical radiographs were used. When there were no available digital radiographs from the baseline appointment, the analogue periapical radiographs were scanned at 1200 dpi (Epson Perfection V800 Photo Color Scanner; Nagano, Japan).
MBL was measured after calibration based on the inter-thread distance of the implants. Measurements were taken from the implant-abutment junction to the marginal bone level, at both mesial and distal sides of each implant, and then the mean value of these two measurements was considered (Fig. 2). MBL was calculated by comparing bone-to-implant contact levels to the radiographic baseline examination. The Image J software (National Institute of Health, Bethesda, USA) was used for all measurements.
The sets of radiographs for every patient were codified and the authors who performed the radiological measurements (S.A.K, J.A.K.) were blinded to the patients’ identification.

Calibration

An initial calibration concerning MBL was performed between the authors. The process was done for 10 random samples from the cohort group, and verified after the measurement of each sample. At the end of the process the measurements from the different individuals were considered enough approximate from each other, with agreement between examiners set at > 90% of the distance in millimeters.

Sample size calculation

A calculation of the sample size was not conducted. The reason is that the database from which the eligible cases for the present study were originated had a certain number of patients and dental implants, namely, approximately 2800 and 11,000, respectively, and it would not possible to recruit more cases, as the database already included all patients treated with dental implants during the aforementioned period in the specialist clinic.
Instead, all the 3-unit implant-supported FPDs were initially considered eligible for inclusion, to get the maximum number of cases available, namely, the largest sample size possible from this database, provided that these cases would fulfill the inclusion criteria, i.e., baseline radiographs taken within 12 months after implant placement and with a minimum of 36 months of radiological follow-up.

Statistical analyses

The mean, standard deviation, and percentages were presented as descriptive statistics. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was performed to evaluate the normal distribution of the variables, and Levene’s test evaluated homoscedasticity. The performed tests for two independent groups were Student’s t test or Mann–Whitney test, one way ANOVA or Kruskal–Wallis test for three independent groups, and paired-samples t test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test for two dependent groups, depending on the normality. Pearson’s Chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test was used in the analysis of contingency tables of categorical data of independent groups. Correlation and linear regression were performed to check the relationships between MBL and time of follow-up.
Univariate linear regression models were used to compare MBL over time between clinical covariates. The estimation of MBL over time (dependent variable) was expressed in a single linear regression equation, for each of the categories of each independent variable (smoking, diabetes, bruxism, sex, age, jaw, jaw region, tooth region, implant diameter, implant surface, prosthesis type, prosthesis fixation). For the present study, the linear regression equation was expressed as
$$y = b + ax,$$
where ‘y’ is the estimated MBL over time. ‘b’ is the estimated intercept at the y-axle in the scatter plot. ‘a’ is the estimated MBL per every 1 month of follow-up. ‘x’ is the number of months of follow-up.
Thus, if one would like to estimate the MBL of a certain category of a certain variable at, for example, 100 months of follow-up, ‘x’ is replaced by the value of 100 in the equation given for that particular category and variable.
To verify multicollinearity, a correlation matrix of all of the predictor variables was scanned, to see whether there were some high correlations among the predictors. Collinearity statistics obtaining variance inflation factor (VIF) and tolerance statistic were also performed to detect more subtle forms of multicollinearity. A linear mixed-effects model was built with all variables that were moderately associated (p < 0.10) with MBL in the univariate linear regression models. Mixed-effects model was used to take into consideration that some patients had more than one implant-supported prostheses, as multiple observations within an individual are not independent of each other. Multiple testing corrections for p values were performed by the Bonferroni adjustment.
The degree of statistical significance was considered p < 0.05. Data were statistically analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 28 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

Results

There were 139 patients (64 men, 75 women) with 164 3-unit implant-supported FPDs (99 prostheses supported by 3 implants, 19 prostheses supported by two implants with a pontic, and 46 prostheses supported by two implants with a cantilever) fulfilling the inclusion criteria of a baseline radiograph taken within 12 months after implant placement and a minimum of 36 months of radiological follow-up. The FPDs were supported by 427 implants, all of which were installed with an open flap approach and in healed sites. Most of the implants of the study were Nobel Biocare implants (Göteborg, Sweden), totaling 368 implants (259 turned/machined and 109 TiUnite implants).
The mean age (± SD) of the 139 patients was 58.7 ± 13.7 years (min–max, 15.6–84.0) on the day of implant placement. The patients were followed up clinically for a mean (± SD) of 154.1 ± 78.0 months (min–max, 37.3–364.6), and radiographically for a mean (± SD) of 132.9 ± 77.3 months (min–max, 36.8–329.9).
Table 1 shows the descriptive data of the cases included in the study, separated by group. The variable of patient’s age was divided into three categories each, based on the 33.3 and 66.7 percentiles of sample distribution, to generate groups of more balanced sample sizes.
Table 1
Descriptive data of the implants included in the study, separated by group. The statistical unit is the implant
Factor
Prostheses without cantilever (%)
Prostheses with cantilever (%)
p value
Patients/Implants (n)
102a/333
43a/94
 
Follow-up (months) (mean ± SD, min–max)
 Clinical
154.6 ± 77.5 (37.3–364.6)
152.4 ± 80.1 (56.7–315.4)
0.645b
 Radiological
131.1 ± 77.4 (36.8–329.9)
139.0 ± 77.0 (38.0–300.6)
0.202b
Age (years)
 Mean ± SD
58.8 ± 14.1
58.4 ± 12.3
0.486b
 < 56
101 (30.4)
32 (33.7)
 
 56.0–65.9
116 (34.8)
33 (34.7)
0.780c,d
 ≥ 66
116 (34.8)
30 (31.6)
 
Sex
 Male
16 (43.8)
45 (47.4)
0.542c,d
 Female
187 (56.2)
50 (52.6)
 
Jaw
 Maxilla
107 (32.1)
50 (52.6)
< 0.001c,d
 Mandible
226 (67.9)
45 (47.4)
 
Jaw position
 Anterior
21 (6.3)
3 (3.2)
0.239c,d
 Posterior
312 (93.7)
92 (96.8)
 
Implant surface
 Turned
214 (64.3)
45 (47.4)
0.003c,d
 Modified
119 (35.7)
50 (52.6)
 
Implant diameter
 < 3.75 mm
18 (5.4)
9 (9.5)
 
 3.75 mm
287 (86.2)
67 (70.5)
0.001c,d
 > 3.75 mm
28 (8.4)
19 (20.0)
 
Prosthesis fixationc
 Cemented
2 (0.6)
2 (2.1)
0.219c,e
 Screwed
326 (99.4)
93 (97.9)
 
Bone quantity
 A–B
222 (66.7)
66 (69.5)
0.607c,d
 C–D–E
111 (33.3)
29 (30.5)
 
Bone quality
 1–2
144 (43.2)
36 (37.9)
0.352c,d
 3–4
189 (56.8)
59 (62.1)
 
Smokingf
 No
210 (80.5)
55 (71.4)
0.091c,d
 Yesg
51 (19.5)
22 (28.6)
 
Bruxismf
 No
229 (86.7)
65 (86.7)
0.986c,d
 Yes
35 (13.3)
10 (13.3)
 
Diabetesf
 No
235 (78.9)
63 (65.7)
0.078c,d
 Yes
23 (21.1)
12 (34.3)
 
SD standard deviation
aThe total number of patients of the study was 139, but some patients had more than one prosthesis, sometimes prostheses with and prostheses without cantilever. That is why the total number of patients in both groups here artificially amounts to “145”
bMann–Whitney test
cComparison of the distribution of cases, among the categories of each factor, between implants in prosthesis with and without cantilever
dPearson’s Chi-squared test
eFisher’s exact test
fFor the cases with available information
gIt includes 8 implants in 3 former smokers
The total number of marginal bone level double measurements (mesial and distal sides of each implant) was 2,909, with 2,238 double measurements for implants supporting prostheses without cantilever and 671 for implants supporting prostheses with a cantilever.
The following tables show data on MBL distributed by different periods of follow-up, separated by implants in different locations within 2-implant-cantilevered prostheses (Table 2), 2-implant prostheses with an intermediary pontic (Table 3), and within 3-implant-supported prostheses (Table 4). There was a general slow and progressive increase in MBL over time, but with no statistically significant difference in the mean values between implants in different locations within the same type of prosthesis.
Table 2
Data on marginal bone loss distributed by implants in different locations within 2-implant-cantilevered prostheses
Follow-upa
n
Implant adjacent to cantilever
Implant distant from cantilever
p valueb
mean ± SD (min, max)
0–1 year
110
− 0.17 ± 0.32 (− 1.39, 0.01)
− 0.22 ± 0.42 (− 1.59, 0.00)
0.592
1–2 years
36
− 0.70 ± 0.50 (− 1.66, 0.38)
− 0.61 ± 0.45 (− 1.61, 0.12)
0.407
2–3 years
22
− 0.87 ± 0.69 (− 2.89, 0.00)
− 0.77 ± 0.46 (− 2.22, 0.14)
0.925
3–4 years
18
− 0.99 ± 0.75 (− 2.55, 0.08)
− 1.00 ± 0.63 (− 2.39, 0.04)
0.743
4–5 years
24
− 0.94 ± 0.61 (− 2.42, 0.00)
− 1.07 ± 0.49 (− 1.98, − 0.11)
0.328
5–10 years
74
− 1.52 ± 0.83 (− 4.38, − 0.26)
− 1.52 ± 0.75 (− 3.76, − 0.41)
0.719
10–15 years
35
− 1.78 ± 0.83 (− 4.28, − 0.69)
− 1.93 ± 0.87 (− 3.30, 0.18)
0.772
15–30 years
30
− 2.19 ± 0.61 (− 3.59, − 1.18)
− 2.15 ± 0.73 (− 3.37, − 0.88)
0.804
Values in millimeters. Negative values correspond to bone loss
SD standard deviation
aNot all implants had radiological follow-up under all these follow-up periods, and some implants could have had more than one radiological follow-up under the same follow-up period
bComparison of the mean values between implants in different positions; Mann–Whitney test
Table 3
Data on marginal bone loss distributed by implants in different locations within 2-implant prostheses with an intermediary pontic
Follow-upa
n
Mesial implant
Distal implant
p value b
mean ± SD (min, max)
0–1 year
48
− 0.23 ± 029 (− 0.99, 0.00)
− 0.19 ± 0.28 (− 0.83, 0.30)
0.539
1–2 years
10
− 0.83 ± 0.89 (− 2.40, 0.03)
− 0.76 ± 0.68 (− 2.23, 0.14)
0.853
2–3 years
16
− 0.92 ± 0.88 (− 2.69, 0.14)
− 0.87 ± 1.05 (− 3.99, 0.00)
0.539
3–4 years
8
− 1.37 ± 1.01 (− 2.84, − 0.01)
− 1.08 ± 0.97 (− 2.41, 0.04)
0.505
4–5 years
5
− 0.75 ± 0.57 (− 1.55, − 0.01)
− 1.53 ± 1.41 (− 3.84, 0.00)
0.421
5–10 years
25
− 1.68 ± 1.16 (− 3.93, 0.00)
− 1.71 ± 1.29 (− 4.12, 0.05)
0.907
10–15 years
14
− 1.25 ± 0.40 (− 1.74, − 0.43)
− 1.40 ± 1.35 (− 5.11, 0.00)
0.734
15–30 years
21
− 1.42 ± 0.72 (− 2.49, − 0.46)
− 1.95 ± 1.23 (− 5.31, − 0.29)
0.089
Values in millimeters. Negative values correspond to bone loss
SD standard deviation
aNot all implants had radiological follow-up under all these follow-up periods, and some implants could have had more than one radiological follow-up under the same follow-up period
bComparison of the mean values between implants in different positions; Mann–Whitney test
Table 4
Data on marginal bone loss distributed by implants in different locations within 3-implant-supported prostheses
Follow-upa
n
Mesial implant
Middle implant
Distal implant
p valueb
mean ± SD (min, max)
0–1 year
297
− 0.16 ± 0.35 (− 1.57, 0.66)
− 0.17 ± 0.33 (− 1.29, 0.39)
− 0.13 ± 0.32 (− 2.15, 0.56)
0.600
1–2 years
63
− 0.58 ± 0.66 (− 3.54, 0.52)
− 0.71 ± 0.62 (− 2.47, 0.27)
− 0.59 ± 0.53 (− 2.35, 0.41)
0.301
2–3 years
32
− 0.53 ± 0.54 (− 2.09, 0.31)
− 0.71 ± 0.57 (− 2.72, 0.09)
− 0.56 ± 0.50 (− 1.67, 0.50)
0.345
3–4 years
51
− 0.89 ± 0.87 (− 4.83, 0.24)
− 0.94 ± 0.76 (− 3.28, 0.28)
− 0.87 ± 0.57 (− 2.69, 0.00)
0.842
4–5 years
37
− 1.11 ± 0.73 (− 2.69, 0.18)
− 1.26 ± 0.66 (− 3.36, − 0.21)
− 1.15 ± 0.59 (− 2.61, − 0.32)
0.665
5–10 years
115
− 1.19 ± 0.99 (− 5.25, 0.46)
− 1.21 ± 0.90 (− 3.66, 0.52)
− 1.16 ± 0.74 (− 3,31, 0.23)
0.913
10–15 years
72
− 1.36 ± 0.87 (− 3.30, 0.18)
− 1.65 ± 1.04 (− 4.14, − 0.05)
− 1.70 ± 0.84 (− 3.47, − 0.13)
0.124
15–30 years
72
− 1.70 ± 0.87 (− 4.94, 0.18)
− 1.87 ± 1.12 (− 5.71, − 0.29)
− 1.77 ± 0.90 (− 3.75, 0.00)
0.953
Values in millimeters. Negative values correspond to bone loss
SD standard deviation
aNot all implants had radiological follow-up under all these follow-up periods, and some implants could have had more than one radiological follow-up under the same follow-up period
bComparison of the mean values between implants in different positions; Kruskal–Wallis test
The univariate linear regression analysis showed that the mean loss of marginal bone over time was statistically significantly different between the categories of the following variables (Table 5): cantilever, age, sex, implant surface, bone quantity, bone quality, and bruxism. The scatter plot with a comparison of MBL over time between prostheses with and without cantilever is presented (Fig. 3).
Table 5
Univariate linear regression analysis for MBL
Factor
Linear equationa
p valueb
R2 linear
Cantilever
 No
y = − 0.37 − 0.00725x
0.003
0.337
 Yes
y = − 0.40 − 0.00930x
 
0.473
Age (years)
 < 56
y = − 042 − 0.00735x
 
0.336
 56.0–65.9
y = − 0.38 − 0.00692x
0.001
0.401
 ≥ 66
y = − 0.29 − 0.01000x
 
0.383
Sex
 Male
y = − 0.36 − 0.00626x
< 0.001
0.356
 Female
y = − 0.39 − 0.00949x
 
0.409
Jaw
 Maxilla
y = − 0.35 − 0.00997x
0.978
0.408
 Mandible
y = − 0.38 − 0.00700x
 
0.357
Jaw position
   
 Anterior
y = − 0.50 − 0.00815x
0.677
0.233
 Posterior
y = − 0.38 − 0.00764x
 
0.370
Implant surface
 Turned
y = − 0.41 − 0.00702x
< 0.001
0.350
 Modified
y = − 0.30 − 0.01000x
 
0.387
Implant diameter
 < 3.75 mm
y = − 0.27 − 0.01000x
0.996
0.370
 3.75 mm
y = − 0.30 − 0.00811x
 
0.342
 > 3.75 mm
y = − 0.30 − 0.00811x
 
0.551
Bone quantity
 A–B
y = − 0.35 − 0.00727x
0.002
0.355
 C–D–E
y = − 0.43 − 0.00870x
 
0.394
Bone quality
 1–2
y = − 0.34 − 0.00747x
0.011
0.370
 3–4
y = − 0.41 − 0.00776x
 
0.355
Smokingc
 No
y = − 0.44 − 0.00696x
0.451
0.350
 Yesd
y = − 0.30 − 0.00933x
 
0.379
Bruxismc
 No
y = − 0.32 − 0.00682x
0.006
0.479
 Yes
y = − 0.43 − 0.00745x
 
0.344
Diabetes
 No
y = − 0.40 − 0.00797x
0.739
0.371
 Yes
y = − 0.47 − 0.00483x
 
0.298
aFor the linear equation, “x” represents the number of months
bComparison of the slope of the equation (variation of MBL in mm in time) between groups
cFor the cases with available information
dIt includes 8 implants in 3 former smokers
Most categories had a moderate degree of linear correlation (R2 linear) with MBL over time, with some presenting a weak degree of linear correlation, namely, absence of cantilever, age < 56 years, anterior region of the jaws, implants of 3.75 mm of diameter, absence of bruxism, and presence of diabetes.
A univariate linear regression sub-analysis for MBL was done comparing the three groups of prosthesis configuration, namely, 3-unit prosthesis supported by two implants with a cantilever, 3-unit prosthesis supported by two implants with a pontic, and 3-unit prosthesis supported by three implants (Table 6). The prosthesis with cantilever was still the one showing a higher estimated MBL over time among the groups. The scatter plot with a comparison of MBL over time between the three different prosthetic configurations is presented (Fig. 4).
Table 6
Univariate linear regression analysis for MBL
Factor
Linear equationa
p valueb
R2 linear
Prosthesis configuration
 Three implants
y = − 0.34 − 0.00747x
< 0.001
0.366
 Two implants with a pontic
y = − 0.55 − 0.00599x
 
0.208
 Two implants with a cantilever
y = − 0.40 − 0.00930x
 
0.473
aFor the linear equation, “x” represents the number of months
bComparison of the slope of the equation (variation of MBL in mm in time) between groups
The results of the linear mixed-effects model (Table 7) suggested that the presence of cantilever, sex (worse for women), implant surface (worse for modified surface implants), bone quality (worse for poor bone qualities), and bruxism (worse for probable bruxers), had a statistically significant influence on MBL over time.
Table 7
Linear mixed-effects model for MBL over time
Predictor variables
F statistic
p value
Cantilever
45.032
< 0.001
Age
2.122
0.145
Sex
143.143
< 0.001
Implant surface
63.869
< 0.001
Bone quantity
0.050
0.824
Bone quality
10.083
0.002
Bruxism
40.013
< 0.001

Discussion

The aim of this retrospective study was to investigate whether a cantilever prosthetic arm was associated with an increased MBL over time in patients rehabilitated with short implant-supported partial fixed prostheses. Based on present findings, it can be suggested that there is a statistically significant difference in the mean MBL over time with regard to cantilever. Other factors were also associated with this outcome, namely, patient’s sex, implant surface, bone quality, and bruxism.
The greater MBL over time observed in short prostheses with cantilever in comparison with prostheses without cantilever can be associated with the possible deleterious unequal transmission of forces from the prosthesis to the crestal bone when a cantilever arm is present, in agreement with many FEA and photoelastic studies on the subject [4, 6, 7, 20]. A FEA study that investigated the exact same of types of 3-unit prostheses as in the present study observed that the highest stress in bone around titanium implants was calculated in the model with prosthesis supported by two implants with a cantilever. Less stress was found in the model with a conventional FPD on two implants, and lowest stress was calculated in the model with three connected crowns supported by three implants [21]. A cantilever's amplified force may result in micromovements of the implant, which in turn is suggested to cause bone loss [1, 4, 5, 13]. It is, however, a matter of debate if the negative effect of cantilever observed in the present study may be clinically significant, due to the small difference of the estimated MBL over long periods of follow-up between the groups.
Women presented a statistically greater estimated MBL over time than males. It was not possible to find a reasonable explanation to this finding, but this may be related to factors not investigated in the present study [22], which might be associated with different patients in the present cohort. There is a very limited number of studies reporting data on MBL separated between men and women, and the reason for this difference was unknown.
The estimated greater MBL over time in implants with modified surface in comparison with implants with turned/machined surface may be due to the fact that rougher implant surfaces are more susceptible to accumulation of bacteria on hard surfaces [2326]. A roughened surface increases the susceptibility for peri-implantitis, as well as reduces the treatment efficacy of the bacteria biofilm [27].
Greater MBL over time in implant sites of poorer bone quality could be related to the looser trabecular configuration and thinner cortical bone of this type of bone in relation to bones with higher density [28]. These anatomical features of poor-quality bone may negative impact clinical outcomes. Increased bone quality, meaning bone with higher density of trabecular and thick or thin cortical bone, has been associated with a decrease in bone loss [29]. Poor bone quality may result in not only in higher implant rates [30], but also in a frequent high loss of bone [31, 32].
The negative impact of bruxism on MBL over time could be associated the absence of a periodontal ligament around dental implants, which may limit the amount of feedback the that the central nervous system receives, which in turn cause a reduction in the tactile sensitivity around implants [33]. As a result, prostheses supported by implants are more likely to be subjected to higher loads during episodes of bruxism dues to the reduced tactile sensitivity [3437]. The results of the first clinical study comparing MBL around implants in a group of bruxers in relation to a matched group of non-bruxers suggested that bruxism increases the risk of MBL over time [38].
This study is not without limitations. Its retrospective nature is associated with a lack of complete documentation in the patients’ records, since the study was not planned before the patients were treated. Data on many variables may have been not recorded in the dental chart. This issue may have been of higher impact when it comes to the periodontal history and status of the patients. Although patients with a history or with signs of periodontal disease were treated in a difference department of the aforementioned clinic, and, therefore, not included in the present study, this does not preclude that some of the patients may have developed peri-implantitis later. The variation in the follow-up time was another limitation. While most patients had a follow-up of 3 years or a bit more, others were followed up for more than 30 years.

Conclusions

The use of a cantilever extension is suggested to negatively affect the bone marginal level over time around implants supporting 3-unit FPDs. However, due to the small difference of the estimated MBL over long periods of follow-up between the groups, it is a matter of debate if the observed negative effect of cantilever may be of clinical significance. Other factors are also suggested to influence MBL over time, namely, women, implant modified surface, poor bone quality, and bruxism.

Declarations

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the regional Ethical Committee, Lund, Sweden (Dnr 2014/598; Dnr 2015/72). As a record-based retrospective study, informed consent was not required for the present study.
As a record-based retrospective study, informed consent was not required for the present study.

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim P, Ivanovski S, Latcham N, Mattheos N. The impact of cantilevers on biological and technical success outcomes of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. A retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:175–84.CrossRefPubMed Kim P, Ivanovski S, Latcham N, Mattheos N. The impact of cantilevers on biological and technical success outcomes of implant-supported fixed partial dentures. A retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:175–84.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Factors influencing the fracture of dental implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20:58–67.CrossRefPubMed Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Factors influencing the fracture of dental implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2018;20:58–67.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Larsson C. Retrospective clinical evaluation of 2- to 6-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures: mean follow-up of 9 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22:201–12.CrossRefPubMed Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Larsson C. Retrospective clinical evaluation of 2- to 6-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures: mean follow-up of 9 years. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22:201–12.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Kumari A, Malhotra P, Phogat S, Yadav B, Yadav J, Phukela SS. A finite element analysis to study the stress distribution on distal implants in an all-on-four situation in atrophic maxilla as affected by the tilt of the implants and varying cantilever lengths. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2020;20:409–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kumari A, Malhotra P, Phogat S, Yadav B, Yadav J, Phukela SS. A finite element analysis to study the stress distribution on distal implants in an all-on-four situation in atrophic maxilla as affected by the tilt of the implants and varying cantilever lengths. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2020;20:409–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Sertgöz A, Güvener S. Finite element analysis of the effect of cantilever and implant length on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76:165–9.CrossRefPubMed Sertgöz A, Güvener S. Finite element analysis of the effect of cantilever and implant length on stress distribution in an implant-supported fixed prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76:165–9.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Silva GC, Mendonca JA, Lopes LR, Landre J Jr. Stress patterns on implants in prostheses supported by four or six implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:239–46.PubMed Silva GC, Mendonca JA, Lopes LR, Landre J Jr. Stress patterns on implants in prostheses supported by four or six implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25:239–46.PubMed
7.
Zurück zum Zitat White SN, Caputo AA, Anderkvist T. Effect of cantilever length on stress transfer by implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71:493–9.CrossRefPubMed White SN, Caputo AA, Anderkvist T. Effect of cantilever length on stress transfer by implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;71:493–9.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Frost HM. Wolff’s Law and bone’s structural adaptations to mechanical usage: an overview for clinicians. Angle Orthod. 1994;64:175–88.PubMed Frost HM. Wolff’s Law and bone’s structural adaptations to mechanical usage: an overview for clinicians. Angle Orthod. 1994;64:175–88.PubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Lindquist LW, Rockler B, Carlsson GE. Bone resorption around fixtures in edentulous patients treated with mandibular fixed tissue-integrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1988;59:59–63.CrossRefPubMed Lindquist LW, Rockler B, Carlsson GE. Bone resorption around fixtures in edentulous patients treated with mandibular fixed tissue-integrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 1988;59:59–63.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Hälg GA, Schmid J, Hämmerle CH. Bone level changes at implants supporting crowns or fixed partial dentures with or without cantilevers. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:983–90.CrossRefPubMed Hälg GA, Schmid J, Hämmerle CH. Bone level changes at implants supporting crowns or fixed partial dentures with or without cantilevers. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19:983–90.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Wennström J, Zurdo J, Karlsson S, Ekestubbe A, Gröndahl K, Lindhe J. Bone level change at implant-supported fixed partial dentures with and without cantilever extension after 5 years in function. J Clin Periodontol. 2004;31:1077–83.CrossRefPubMed Wennström J, Zurdo J, Karlsson S, Ekestubbe A, Gröndahl K, Lindhe J. Bone level change at implant-supported fixed partial dentures with and without cantilever extension after 5 years in function. J Clin Periodontol. 2004;31:1077–83.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Palmer RM, Howe LC, Palmer PJ, Wilson R. A prospective clinical trial of single Astra Tech 4.0 or 5.0 diameter implants used to support two-unit cantilever bridges: results after 3 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:35–40.CrossRefPubMed Palmer RM, Howe LC, Palmer PJ, Wilson R. A prospective clinical trial of single Astra Tech 4.0 or 5.0 diameter implants used to support two-unit cantilever bridges: results after 3 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:35–40.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Mumcu E, Bilhan H, Cekici A. Marginal bone loss around implants supporting fixed restorations. J Oral Implantol. 2011;37:549–58.CrossRefPubMed Mumcu E, Bilhan H, Cekici A. Marginal bone loss around implants supporting fixed restorations. J Oral Implantol. 2011;37:549–58.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zurück zum Zitat World Medical Association. Revising the Declaration of Helsinki. Bull Med Ethics. 2000:9–11. World Medical Association. Revising the Declaration of Helsinki. Bull Med Ethics. 2000:9–11.
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Albrektsson T, Chrcanovic B, Östman PO, Sennerby L. Initial and long-term crestal bone responses to modern dental implants. Periodontol. 2000;2017(73):41–50. Albrektsson T, Chrcanovic B, Östman PO, Sennerby L. Initial and long-term crestal bone responses to modern dental implants. Periodontol. 2000;2017(73):41–50.
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Bruxism and dental implant treatment complications: a retrospective comparative study of 98 bruxer patients and a matched group. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:e1–9.CrossRefPubMed Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Bruxism and dental implant treatment complications: a retrospective comparative study of 98 bruxer patients and a matched group. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:e1–9.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Brånemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, editors. Tissue integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Company; 1985. p. 199–209. Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Brånemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T, editors. Tissue integrated prostheses: osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Company; 1985. p. 199–209.
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Gonda T, Yasuda D, Ikebe K, Maeda Y. Biomechanical factors associated with mandibular cantilevers: analysis with three-dimensional finite element models. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:e275–82.CrossRefPubMed Gonda T, Yasuda D, Ikebe K, Maeda Y. Biomechanical factors associated with mandibular cantilevers: analysis with three-dimensional finite element models. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:e275–82.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Stegaroiu R, Sato T, Kusakari H, Miyakawa O. Influence of restoration type on stress distribution in bone around implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13:82–90.PubMed Stegaroiu R, Sato T, Kusakari H, Miyakawa O. Influence of restoration type on stress distribution in bone around implants: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13:82–90.PubMed
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Dental implants inserted in male versus female patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2015;42:709–22.CrossRefPubMed Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Dental implants inserted in male versus female patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2015;42:709–22.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Bürgers R, Gerlach T, Hahnel S, Schwarz F, Handel G, Gosau M. In vivo and in vitro biofilm formation on two different titanium implant surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:156–64.CrossRefPubMed Bürgers R, Gerlach T, Hahnel S, Schwarz F, Handel G, Gosau M. In vivo and in vitro biofilm formation on two different titanium implant surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:156–64.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Turned versus anodised dental implants: a meta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2016;43:716–28.CrossRefPubMed Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Turned versus anodised dental implants: a meta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2016;43:716–28.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Kligman S, Ren Z, Chung CH, Perillo MA, Chang YC, Koo H, et al. The impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration and biofilm formation. J Clin Med. 2021;10:1641.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kligman S, Ren Z, Chung CH, Perillo MA, Chang YC, Koo H, et al. The impact of dental implant surface modifications on osseointegration and biofilm formation. J Clin Med. 2021;10:1641.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, Quirynen M. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(Suppl 2):68–81.CrossRefPubMed Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, Quirynen M. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(Suppl 2):68–81.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Lin HY, Liu Y, Wismeijer D, Crielaard W, Deng DM. Effects of oral implant surface roughness on bacterial biofilm formation and treatment efficacy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28:1226–31.CrossRefPubMed Lin HY, Liu Y, Wismeijer D, Crielaard W, Deng DM. Effects of oral implant surface roughness on bacterial biofilm formation and treatment efficacy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013;28:1226–31.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Li J, Yin X, Huang L, Mouraret S, Brunski JB, Cordova L, et al. Relationships among bone quality, implant osseointegration, and Wnt signaling. J Dent Res. 2017;96:822–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Li J, Yin X, Huang L, Mouraret S, Brunski JB, Cordova L, et al. Relationships among bone quality, implant osseointegration, and Wnt signaling. J Dent Res. 2017;96:822–31.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Eskandarloo A, Arabi R, Bidgoli M, Yousefi F, Poorolajal J. Association between marginal bone loss and bone quality at dental implant sites based on evidence from cone beam computed tomography and periapical radiographs. Contemp Clin Dent. 2019;10:36–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Eskandarloo A, Arabi R, Bidgoli M, Yousefi F, Poorolajal J. Association between marginal bone loss and bone quality at dental implant sites based on evidence from cone beam computed tomography and periapical radiographs. Contemp Clin Dent. 2019;10:36–41.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Bone quality and quantity and dental implant failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30:219–37.CrossRefPubMed Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Bone quality and quantity and dental implant failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Prosthodont. 2017;30:219–37.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T. Effects of different implant surfaces and designs on marginal bone-level alterations: a review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(Suppl 4):207–15.CrossRefPubMed Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T. Effects of different implant surfaces and designs on marginal bone-level alterations: a review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(Suppl 4):207–15.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Chrcanovic B. Long-term clinical outcome of implants with different surface modifications. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018;11(Suppl 1):S123–36.PubMed Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T, Chrcanovic B. Long-term clinical outcome of implants with different surface modifications. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2018;11(Suppl 1):S123–36.PubMed
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Meyer G, Fanghänel J, Proff P. Morphofunctional aspects of dental implants. Ann Anat. 2012;194:190–4.CrossRefPubMed Meyer G, Fanghänel J, Proff P. Morphofunctional aspects of dental implants. Ann Anat. 2012;194:190–4.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Bruxism and dental implant failures: a multilevel mixed effects parametric survival analysis approach. J Oral Rehabil. 2016;43:813–23.CrossRefPubMed Chrcanovic BR, Kisch J, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Bruxism and dental implant failures: a multilevel mixed effects parametric survival analysis approach. J Oral Rehabil. 2016;43:813–23.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Lobbezoo F, Brouwers JE, Cune MS, Naeije M. Dental implants in patients with bruxing habits. J Oral Rehabil. 2006;33:152–9.CrossRefPubMed Lobbezoo F, Brouwers JE, Cune MS, Naeije M. Dental implants in patients with bruxing habits. J Oral Rehabil. 2006;33:152–9.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Mishra SK, Chowdhary R, Chrcanovic BR, Brånemark PI. osseoperception in dental implants: a systematic review. J Prosthodont. 2016;25:185–95.CrossRefPubMed Mishra SK, Chowdhary R, Chrcanovic BR, Brånemark PI. osseoperception in dental implants: a systematic review. J Prosthodont. 2016;25:185–95.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Haggman-Henrikson B, Ali D, Aljamal M, Chrcanovic BR. Bruxism and dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2023. Haggman-Henrikson B, Ali D, Aljamal M, Chrcanovic BR. Bruxism and dental implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2023.
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Bredberg C, Vu C, Häggman-Henrikson B, Chrcanovic BR. Marginal bone loss around dental implants: comparison between matched groups of bruxer and non-bruxer patients: a retrospective case-control study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023;25:124–32.CrossRefPubMed Bredberg C, Vu C, Häggman-Henrikson B, Chrcanovic BR. Marginal bone loss around dental implants: comparison between matched groups of bruxer and non-bruxer patients: a retrospective case-control study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023;25:124–32.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Difference in marginal bone loss around implants between short implant-supported partial fixed prostheses with and without cantilever: a retrospective clinical study
verfasst von
Josef Al-Kilani
Sedef Al-Kilani
Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2023
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
International Journal of Implant Dentistry / Ausgabe 1/2023
Elektronische ISSN: 2198-4034
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-023-00515-w

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2023

International Journal of Implant Dentistry 1/2023 Zur Ausgabe

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Sechs Monate E-Rezept – Erfolgsgeschichte mit Schattenseiten

IT für Ärzte Nachrichten

244 Millionen E-Rezepte sind in sechs Monaten eingelöst worden: Nach einem halben Jahr zieht die Betriebsgesellschaft gematik eine positive Zwischenbilanz. Doch noch sind nicht alle Akteure begeistert.

So können sich Praxen vor Cyberkriminalität schützen

IT für Ärzte Nachrichten

Immer wieder werden Arztpraxen Opfer von Netzverbrechern. Der typische Hacker war einmal, Cyberkriminalität ist sehr vielfältig, berichtet Lars Korunalp. Der IT-Berater gibt Tipps und nennt konkrete Maßnahmen, wie sich Praxen vor Zugriffen aus dem Internet schützen können.

Thüringer Landtag beschließt Vorab-Quote im Medizinstudium

Bewerber, die sich zu einer langen Tätigkeit als Haus- oder Zahnarzt in Thüringen verpflichten, bekommen in Jena künftig leichter einen Studienplatz. Sechs Prozent der Plätze sollen so vergeben werden.

Notfallreform: Lauterbach nimmt KVen und ausgewählte Kliniken in die Pflicht

06.06.2024 Klinik aktuell Nachrichten

Die Ampelkoalition nimmt einen neuen Anlauf für die Reform der Notfallversorgung. Der Gesetzentwurf zeigt: Die Vertragsärzte müssen sich auf erhebliche Veränderungen in der Organisation der Notdienste einstellen.

Update Zahnmedizin

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.