Immediately loaded mini‐implants supporting mandibular overdentures: A one‐year comparative prospective cohort study

Abstract

BackgroundLittle is known about differences between mini‐implants and conventional immediately loaded implants for overdentures.ObjectivesTo compare clinical outcomes using two immediately loaded conventional or mini‐implants for mandibular overdentures.Materials and MethodsEdentulous patients receiving either conventional (4.1 mm) or mini‐implants (2.9 mm or less), based on available bone width were analyzed. All implants were immediately loaded with mandibular overdentures installed using locator attachments. Digital periapical radiographs for measuring marginal bone loss and clinical outcomes (ie, periodontal probing, plaque, and bleeding indices) were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12‐month follow‐up periods.ResultsFifty patients (25 receiving conventional implants—12 females, mean age of 65.3 ± 7.3 years; and 25 receiving mini‐implants—11 females, mean age of 66.8 ± 8.1 years) was analyzed. Peak insertion torque (P = .001) and bone loss (P = .02), as well as change in plaque (P = .02) and bleeding (P = .04) indices at 12 months differed significantly between groups. Furthermore, linear regression revealed the height of the locator as a risk factor for bone loss (P = .038).ConclusionsThe present findings suggest that two mini‐implants are significantly more susceptible to bone loss after immediate loading, for which the height of locator might be considered a risk factor.

Maintenance and risk factors for fractures of overdentures using immediately loaded conventional diameter or mini implants with Locator abutments: A cohort study

“…The distribution of bone density and quantity of both groups were comparable, as previously reported by the present authors. 15 Depending on group allocation, two conventional diameter or two mini implants were installed between the mental foramina, ideally in the canine sites (considering satisfactory bone dimensions available), or with a minimum distance between the implants of 10 mm using minimal flap reflection, following previous described methodology. 16 Guide holes were drilled in the mandibular complete denture to direct the surgeon during implant placement providing an image guided technique.…”

“…Inc.) abutments were first hand tightened and the operative site was then secured with monofilament sutures, following a previously described surgical protocol. 15 Patients were instructed not to remove the lower overdenture until the time of suture removal (7 days later) and to maintain a soft diet. Seven days after surgery, the overdenture was removed from the mouth.…”

Patient‐based outcomes with conventional or mini‐implants immediately loaded with locator‐retained mandibular overdentures: A cohort study

“…The surgical and prosthodontic protocols used herein have been described in a previous study. 16 In summary, depending on which group the patient was assigned to, two conventional diameter or two mini-implants were installed between the mental foramina using a mid-crestal incision with vertical releasing incisions to expose the ridge. After confirming that the minimum desired peak insertion torque required for immediate loading was reached, the Locator (Zest Patients were instructed not to remove the lower overdenture until the time of suture removal and to maintain a soft diet.…”

“…14,15 In this context, a previous study using Locators abutments found significantly better clinical and biological results for two conventional diameter implants, as compared with two mini-implants. 16 On the other hand, little is known on OHrQoL and satisfaction differences in patients using overdentures supported by Locator abutments on two conventional or two mini-implants. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the OHrQoL and satisfaction with overdentures in a clinical cohort study.…”

“…One of the factors that can affect clinical outcomes of an overdenture is the diameter of the dental implants used 14,15 . In this context, a previous study using Locators abutments found significantly better clinical and biological results for two conventional diameter implants, as compared with two mini‐implants 16 . On the other hand, little is known on OHrQoL and satisfaction differences in patients using overdentures supported by Locator abutments on two conventional or two mini‐implants.…”