Implant‐supported mandibular removable partial dentures: Functional, clinical and radiographical parameters in relation to implant position

Abstract

Implant support to a Kennedy class I RPD significantly improves masticatory function, regardless of implant position. No major clinical problems were observed.

Effect of conversion to implant‐assisted removable partial denture in patients with mandibular Kennedy classification Ⅰ: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Food comminution and homogenization index were improved after conversion from conventional RPD to IARPD (Campos, Goncalves, & Rodrigues Garcia, ; Goncalves, Campos, Goncalves, de Moraes, and Rodrigues Garcia, ; Jensen et al, ). Campos et al reported that the number of masticatory cycles before swallowing was not significantly different after conversion.…”

“…Eight studies analyzed the survival rate of implants after loading for at least 6 months (Bahrami & Alsharbaty, ) (Bae et al, ; Disha et al, ; Jensen, Meijer, Raghoebar, Kerdijk, & Cune, ; Jensen et al, ; Ortiz‐Puigpelat, Gargallo‐Albiol, Hernandez‐Alfaro, & Cabratosa‐Termes, ; Threeburuth et al, ; Wismeijer et al, ) (Table ). In most studies (6/8), a single implant was placed in each distal extension edentulous area.…”

“…Six studies reported the mechanical complications of IARPD for mandibular Kennedy classification. Two of them reported no mechanical complications for one year and five years, respectively (Bahrami & Alsharbaty, ) (Jensen et al, ). In the other studies, the most frequent mechanical complication was adaptation or replacement of the attachment (Bae et al, ; Payne, Tawse‐Smith, Wismeijer, De Silva, & Ma, ; Threeburuth et al, ).…”

“…In the theoretical experimental model, as the implant moves to a more posterior position in the distal extension area, the stress on the oral mucosa beneath the denture base is reduced, and the stress on the implants and abutment teeth is increased (Matsudate et al, ). The results of crossover RCT comparing the position of the implant (premolar vs. molar area) showed no differences in PROMs and clinical and radiographical parameters between the two groups (Jensen et al, , ). Therefore, although long‐term comparative RCTs are needed, patient‐customized treatment plan should be established to determine the implant location.…”

“…Threeburuth et al reported that a small‐diameter implant (3.0 mm) had lower marginal bone loss than the standard implant (3.75 mm in diameter) in a 1‐year RCT (Threeburuth et al, ). However, Jensen et al used small‐diameter implants (3.3 mm) and short implants (6 mm in length) with IARPD for the mandibular Kennedy class Ⅰ patient, and the tentative results suggested that the 1‐year mean MBL was 1.10 ( SD = 0.53) mm and 1.06 ( SD = 0.59) mm, respectively (Jensen et al, ). In addition, according to a prospective multicenter study, the 10‐year cumulative survival rate of implants was 92%, and all failed implants (6 of 72 implants) were short (6mm in length) and failed after 5 years of loading (Payne et al, ).…”