Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosseous implants

Visser, Anita; Raghoebar, Gerry M.; Meijer, Henny J. A.; Batenburg, Rutger H. K.; Vissink, Arjan

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01085.x

Cited by 133 publications

(154 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

126

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[6][7][8] Bar-clip and O-ring overdenture abutments are the most common types, and they are classified as resilient systems. 9,10 These retentive mechanisms attached to implants transmit stress to the bone differently than natural teeth supported by periodontal ligaments. 5,11,12 If the incident force on the implant exceeds the physiological limit, it can result in overload, with consequent bone microfractures that can heal with nonmineralized connective tissue or lost tissue, because the implants are not prepared to support excessive force.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Photoelastic stress analysis in mandibular bone surrounding bar-clip overdenture implants

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate, using the photoelastic analysis method, the stress distribution in mandibular bone surrounding a bar-clip overdenture when 2 implant angulations were simulated. Two mandibular photoelastic models were manufactured, with 2 implants embedded in the interforaminal region: model 1 -PAPI, a photoelastic analysis model with parallel implants; and model 2 -PAAI, a photoelastic analysis model with angled implants. A bar-clip retention system and an overdenture were positioned over the implants, and loads of 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 bars were applied. The resultant stresses that developed in the supporting structure were photoelastically monitored and were recorded photographically. The results showed that there were no similarities in the areas of stress among the photoelastic resin models when the angulation of the implants was evaluated. Model 1 -PAPI presented a higher stress concentration at the implant apex, while in model 2 -PAAI, there were higher stress concentrations on the mesial and distal implant faces. Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded that the PAPI photoelastic model demonstrated better stress transfer compared to the PAAI model, since the forces oriented along the axis were better absorbed by the bone.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Photoelastic stress analysis in mandibular bone surrounding bar-clip overdenture implants

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In group one the patients received two IMZ implants each and in group two the patients received four implants each. There were no significant differences with regard to the clinical and radiological parameters [61].…”

Section: Studies With Comparison Of Two Versus Four Implants In the Ementioning

confidence: 73%

“…Only a few randomized prospective studies with longer observation periods have been carried out to date. There is comparison of implant-supported overdentures involving two versus four implants in only four studies [59][60][61][62]. There have been just as few studies that have investigated the influence of the opposing jaw on the treatment success of the mandible with implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hybrid Prosthetic Treatment of the Edentulous Mandible with Two or Four Implants - A Literature Review

G¹

2014

Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatment of an edentulous mandible is an important standard area of indication for implants. The aim of the present study was to discuss various aspects of this very important topic using a literature research and possibly derive a recommendation for hybrid prosthetic treatment of the edentulous mandible.Though evaluation of the literature produced a large number of publications with case histories and survival rates, there were only a few prospective randomised clinical studies that compared different treatment concepts in the edentulous mandible to allow an evidence-based statement.Despite all the limitations imposed on the interpretation of the study, the following statements could be made with regard to implant-supported dentures in the edentulous mandible:Two implants represent the easiest, most inexpensive treatment and are adequate for stabilizing a denture in an edentulous mandible. This type of restoration is easy to maintain for the patient with regard to oral hygiene and surgery stress is reduced to a minimum. The disadvantages of this treatment are increased mobility and instability of the denture in the dorsal region.Apart from increased intraoral comfort, the advantages of treatment using four implants include the stable fit of the denture and the option of immediate restoration.

show abstract

“…Clinical studies have proved that the number of implant used to retain an overdenture does not influence the treatment outcomes. 18 Systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials have also concluded that two implant supported overdenture should be the minimum gold standard treatment for edentulous patients. 19,20 We have also used the well accepted, scientifically proven and cost effective concept of two implants in the inter-foramina region of the mandible to support an overdenture.…”

Section: S351mentioning

confidence: 99%

A clinico radiographic study of immediate loading implants in rehabilitation of mandibular ridges

Viswambaran¹,

Arora²,

Gupta³

et al. 2015

Medical Journal Armed Forces India

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methods: A total of 30 completely edentulous patients male or female, in the age group of 54e78 years (mean age 65 years), wearing conventional complete dentures were selected and randomly divided in to two groups. A total of 60 implants were placed in the interforaminal area of the mental symphysis (two implants per patients) in 30 patients. Two types of attachment systems namely Ball for group-A and Bar for group-B were used and immediate loading done.Implants were evaluated clinically and radiographically at baseline, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 9 months. All clinical and radiographic parameters were subjected to statistical analysis.Result: The implant survival rate for group-A (ball attachment) was 93.3% and implant survival rate for group-B (bar attachment) was 93.3%. The overall implant survival rate was not dependent on the attachment system. There was no significant difference in the crestal bone loss in mesial, and distal side in implants with respect to ball and bar attachment for different period of observation (F ¼ 0.25; P ¼ 0.910; F ¼ 0.07; P ¼ 0.992 respectively). m e d i c a l j o u r n a l a r m e d f o r c e s i n d i a 7 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) S 3 4 6 eS 3 5 4

show abstract

Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosseous implants

Abstract: There is no difference in clinical and radiographical state of patients treated with an overdenture on two or four implants during a 5-year evaluation period. Patients of both groups were as satisfied with their overdentures.

Cited by 133 publications

References 20 publications

Photoelastic stress analysis in mandibular bone surrounding bar-clip overdenture implants

Photoelastic stress analysis in mandibular bone surrounding bar-clip overdenture implants

Hybrid Prosthetic Treatment of the Edentulous Mandible with Two or Four Implants - A Literature Review

A clinico radiographic study of immediate loading implants in rehabilitation of mandibular ridges

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About