Marginal tissue response adjacent to Astra Dental Implants® supporting overdentures in the mandible. A 2‐year follow‐up study.

Gotfredsen, Klaus; Holm, Bente; Sewerin, I; Harder, F; Hjörting-Hansen, E.; Pedersen, Carsten S.; Christensen, Kjeld

doi:10.1034/j.1600-0501.1993.040204.x

Cited by 36 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of this study differed from the results of some authors [28,29], who reported that the mean bone loss during the functional period of one year ranged from 0.3-0.6 mm. This difference may be due to the difference in the type of implant or the type of attachment.…”

Section: Occlusioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Comparison of Monoplane Occlusion and Median Ligualized Occlusion in Implant-Retained Mandibular Complete Overdenture

El-Dayem¹,

Mahmoud²,

Asaad³

et al. 2016

J Dent Oro Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare median lingualized and monoplane occlusion in Implant retained mandibular overdenture with ball and socket attachment. Materials and Methods:Ten completely edentulous patients were selected to receive with dental implants. Each patient received two cylinders with reversed screw and hydroxyapetite coated dental implants, one implant on each side in the canine regions of the mandible. The implants were left submerged (unloaded) for a healing and osseointegration period of four months. The patients were divided into two groups, five patients in each. Group I patients received overdenture retained by ball and socket attachment, the artificial teeth were arranged in a median lingualized occlusion, and Group II patients received overdenture retained by ball and socket attachment but the artificial teeth were arranged in a monoplane occlusion. All patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically immediately after overdenture delivery and after 6 and 12 months. Results and conclusion:There was no statistically significant difference between median lingualized and monoplane occlusion in implants supporting a mandibular overdenture retained by ball & socket attachment. From the clinical point of view, satisfactory results were obtained when two dental implants were placed in the intraforaminal region of the mandible and connected with ball and socket attachment to support and retain mandibular overdenture. These satisfactory results were obtained with median lingualized occlusion as well as with monoplane ones.

show abstract

Section: Occlusioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Comparison of Monoplane Occlusion and Median Ligualized Occlusion in Implant-Retained Mandibular Complete Overdenture

El-Dayem¹,

Mahmoud²,

Asaad³

et al. 2016

J Dent Oro Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…21,22 Several studies have examined possible differences between these attachment options in terms of denture stability and retentive forces, peri-implant attachment loss, financial aspects of treatment, degree and frequency of long-term complications, patient satisfaction, and clinical peri-implant findings. [21][22][23][24][25] To our knowledge, no study to date has adressed the Candida species related to DRS in patients with different overdenture attachments. The aim of this study was therefore to assess the prevalence of DRS in wearers of different attachment-retained overdentures and its association with particular colonizing Candida species.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Candida Species colonization and denture-related stomatitis in bar- and locator- retained overdentures

Kılıç¹,

Koç²,

Tekinsen³

et al. 2012

Journal of Oral Implantology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of denture-related stomatitis (DRS) in different attachment-retained overdenture wearers and its association with particular colonizing Candida species. Thirty-seven edentulous patients with implant-supported maxillary or mandibular overdentures were enrolled. A full clinical history was obtained, including details of their oral hygiene practices and the levels of erythema based on Newton's classification scale. Swabs were taken from the palate and investigated mycologically to identify the yeast colonies. Quantitative and qualitative microbiological assessments were performed, recording the total numbers of colonies (cfu), their color, and their morphological characteristics. Significant differences were found in cfu values from the attachment and inner surfaces of locator-and bar-retained overdentures (P < 0.05). Candida albicans was the most common species in both evaluations, being isolated from 81.3% of bar-retained overdentures and 38.1% of locator-retained overdentures. DRS developed in all patients using bar-retained overdentures, but in only 71.4% of those using locator-retained overdentures. No statistically significant relationship was found between bar and locator attachments according to smoking habit, overnight removal, or plaque and gingival indices (P > 0.05). ABSTRACTThe aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of denture-related stomatitis (DRS) in different attachment-retained overdenture wearers and its association with particular colonizing Candida species. Thirty-seven edentulous patients with implant-supported maxillary or mandibular overdentures were enrolled. A full clinical history was obtained, including details of their oral hygiene practices and the levels of erythema based on Newton's classification scale. Swabs were taken from the palate and investigated mycologically to identify the yeast colonies. Quantitative and qualitative microbiological assessments were performed, recording the total numbers of colonies (cfu), their color, and their morphological characteristics. Significant differences were found in cfu values from the attachment and inner surfaces of locator-and bar-retained overdentures (P < 0.05). Candida albicans was the most common species in both evaluations, being isolated from 81.3% of bar-retained overdentures and 38.1% of locator-retained overdentures. DRS developed in all patients using bar-retained overdentures, but in only 71.4% of those using locator-retained overdentures. No statistically significant relationship was found between bar and locator attachments according to smoking habit, overnight removal, or plaque and gingival indices (P > 0.05).

show abstract

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6] However, there is a lack of long-term studies on moderately rough implants. [1][2][3][4][5][6] However, there is a lack of long-term studies on moderately rough implants.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A 10-Year Follow-Up Study of Titanium Dioxide–Blasted Implants

Rasmusson

Roos²,

Bystedt

2005

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

167

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Marginal tissue response adjacent to Astra Dental Implants® supporting overdentures in the mandible. A 2‐year follow‐up study.

Cited by 36 publications

References 0 publications

Comparison of Monoplane Occlusion and Median Ligualized Occlusion in Implant-Retained Mandibular Complete Overdenture

Comparison of Monoplane Occlusion and Median Ligualized Occlusion in Implant-Retained Mandibular Complete Overdenture

Assessment of Candida Species colonization and denture-related stomatitis in bar- and locator- retained overdentures

A 10-Year Follow-Up Study of Titanium Dioxide–Blasted Implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About