Early-Loaded One-Stage Implants Retaining Mandibular Overdentures by Two Different Mechanisms: 5-Year Results

Akça, Kıvanç; Çavuşoğlu, Yeliz; Sağırkaya, Elçin; Çehreli, Murat Cavit

doi:10.11607/jomi.2994

Cited by 23 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…O‐ring systems are the most widely studied attachments. However, this retention system has some problems, such as a greater need of realignment and exchange of the retentive matrix, requiring a greater number of maintenance sessions . Stud attachment types are an alternative treatment option and seem to promote greater comfort by generating greater retention and stability .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does mandibular bone atrophy influence the masticatory function, OHRQoL and satisfaction in overdenture wearers? Clinical results until 1‐year post‐loading

Marcello-Machado

Faot

Schuster

et al. 2017

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This longitudinal clinical study investigated the differences in the masticatory function (MF), satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) between atrophic patients (AP) and non-atrophic patients (NAP) before and after rehabilitation with mandibular overdenture (MO). Twenty-six complete denture (CD) wearers were categorised into two groups, according to the mandibular bone atrophy (MBA) degree. MF was evaluated before and after 1, 3, 6 and 12 months of the MO loading via 2 standardised tests: (i) MP, masticatory performance (MP_X50, MPB, ME 5·6, ME 2·8) and (ii) ST, swallowing threshold (time, number of cycles, ST_X50, STB, ME 5·6, ME 2·8). The dental impact on daily living (DIDL) questionnaire measured changes in the satisfaction level and OHRQoL. MP comparisons showed significant difference only for ME 5·6 12 months after MO loading (AP=33·79 ± 23·6; NAP=17·58 ± 20·1). ST presented significant differences before MO loading for: ST_X50 (AP=5·48 ± 0·83; NAP=4·31 ± 1·44), ME 5·6 (AP=53·17 ± 24·71; NAP=29·83 ± 31·45) and ME 2·8 (AP=8·76 ± 6·91; NAP=18·61 ± 10·71). One month after MO loading, NAP performed the ST test 21% faster than AP. After 3 months, significant improvements in STB (AP=4·93 ± 4·82; NAP=2·73 ± 1·27) and ME 2·8 (AP=17·15 ± 10·00; NAP=24·69 ± 7·82) also were observed. DIDL evaluation showed significant differences in the oral comfort domain after 3 months (AP=0·66 ± 0·29; NAP=0·87 ± 0·16) and after 6 months (AP=0·79 ± 0·22; NAP=0·98 ± 0·08), with lower satisfaction levels in the AP. MBA negatively affects the MF mainly the ST. After 6 months, differences between AP and NAP disappeared and ST results were equalised. AP initially has lower satisfaction levels reaching similar levels of satisfaction as NAP after 1 year.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does mandibular bone atrophy influence the masticatory function, OHRQoL and satisfaction in overdenture wearers? Clinical results until 1‐year post‐loading

Marcello-Machado

Faot

Schuster

et al. 2017

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the replacement frequency of the Locator patrix tended to be lower than that of the ball attachment. In a 5-year clinical study of Akça et al,16 the Locator showed less bone resorption and higher plaque and bleeding indices than that of the ball attachment. On the other hand, Krennmair et al17 reported that the satisfaction with the implant overdentures by using the Locator was higher than that of the conventional dentures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 90%

Clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures via Locator implant attachment and Locator bar attachment

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSEThe aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical findings and patient satisfaction on implant overdenture designed with Locator implant attachment or Locator bar attachment in mandibular edentulous patients.MATERIALS AND METHODSImplant survival rate, marginal bone loss, probing depth, peri-implant inflammation, bleeding, plaque, calculus, complications, and satisfaction were evaluated on sixteen patients who were treated with mandibular overdenture and have used it for at least 1 year (Locator implant attachment: n=8, Locator bar attachment: n=8).RESULTSMarginal bone loss, probing depth, plaque index of the Locator bar attachment group were significantly lower than the Locator implant attachment group (P<.05). There was no significant difference on bleeding, peri-implant inflammation, and patient satisfaction between the two denture types (P>.05). The replacement of the attachment components was the most common complication in both groups. Although there was no correlation between marginal bone loss and plaque index, a significant correlation was found between marginal bone loss and probing depth.CONCLUSIONThe Locator bar attachment group indicates lesser marginal bone loss and need for maintenance, as compared with the Locator implant attachment group. This may be due to the splinting effect among implants rather than the types of Locator attachment.

show abstract

“…45 Stud attachment types are an alternative treatment option and seem to promote greater comfort by generating greater retention and stability. 45 Stud attachment types are an alternative treatment option and seem to promote greater comfort by generating greater retention and stability.…”

Section: Adjustments 30mentioning

confidence: 99%

One‐year clinical outcomes of locking taper Equator attachments retaining mandibular overdentures to narrow diameter implants

Marcello-Machado

Faot

Schuster

et al. 2018

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Early-Loaded One-Stage Implants Retaining Mandibular Overdentures by Two Different Mechanisms: 5-Year Results

Cited by 23 publications

References 0 publications

How does mandibular bone atrophy influence the masticatory function, OHRQoL and satisfaction in overdenture wearers? Clinical results until 1‐year post‐loading

How does mandibular bone atrophy influence the masticatory function, OHRQoL and satisfaction in overdenture wearers? Clinical results until 1‐year post‐loading

Clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures via Locator implant attachment and Locator bar attachment

One‐year clinical outcomes of locking taper Equator attachments retaining mandibular overdentures to narrow diameter implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About