A clinical and radiological two‐year follow‐up study of maxillary overdentures on osseointegrated implants

Abstract

In order to satisfy the need to restore the aesthetics, phonetics and comfort and to facilitate optimal hygiene procedures, 20 edentulous patients were treated with a new concept of overdenture therapy on implants and modum Brånemark. After 24 +/- 3.5 months the patients were re-examined. They were asked to answer a questionnaire and use a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) to give their opinion on the prosthetic treatment. The results indicate that an implant-retained overdenture in the maxilla with this design can satisfy the patients needs in aesthetics, phonetics and comfort and can facilitate oral hygiene measures.

A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years

“…It is evident from the meta‐analysis that implants in overdenture therapy exhibited higher frequencies of (>5%) of implant loss during a 5‐year function period than implants supporting fixed reconstructions (2–3%). The higher scores on implant loss during function found for overdentures are mainly related to implant loss occurring in the maxilla (Bergendal & Engquist 1998, Jemt et al . 1996, Smedberg et al .…”

Evaluation of subjective satisfaction of dental implant patients

“…Wismeijer et al4 commented that implant overdenture treatment gave patients social rehabilitation as well as oral rehabilitation. Numerous studies were done with edentulous patients who were treated with implant-supported overdentures or implant fixed full dentures, and patients showed high-satisfaction with both treatments5,6,7,8. The patients who were treated with implant-supported overdentures showed a higher level of satisfaction than those who were treated with conventional full dentures9,10,11.…”

Treatment of peri‐implant infections: a literature review

“…The prevalence of peri‐implant mucositis has been reported in the range of 8–44% (Adell et al 1986, Lekholm et al 1986, 1999, Spörlein & Stein 1987, Smedberg et al 1993, van Steenberghe et al 1993, Bengazi et al 1996, Jepsen et al 1996, Behneke et al 1997a, b), while frequency of peri‐implantitis has been reported in the range of 1–19% (Spörlein & Stein 1987, van Steenberghe et al 1990, 1993, Richter et al 1992, Weber et al 1992, Smedberg et al 1993, Lekholm et al 1999). The wide ranges for the frequencies seem to be due to differences in defining the two entities, at least in part.…”