Maxillary implant‐supported overdentures opposed by (partial) natural dentitions: a 5‐year prospective case series study

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the 5-year treatment outcome of maxillary implant-retained overdentures opposed by natural antagonistic teeth. Fifty consecutive patients received maxillary overdentures supported by six dental implants. Implants were placed in the anterior region, if enough bone was present (n = 25 patients) Implant were placed in the posterior region if implant placement in the anterior region was not possible (n = 25 patients). Variables assessed included survival of implants, condition of hard and soft peri-implant tissues and patients' satisfaction. The five-year implant survival rate was 97·0% and 99·3%, and mean radiographic bone loss was 0·23 and 0·69 mm in the anterior and posterior group, respectively. Median scores for plaque, calculus, gingiva, bleeding and mean scores for pocket probing depth were low and stayed low. Patients' satisfaction after treatment was high in both groups. Within the limits of this 5-year study, it is concluded that six dental implants (placed in the anterior or posterior region) connected with a bar and opposed to natural antagonistic teeth result in acceptable results for clinical parameters and good outcomes for marginal bone level changes and patient satisfaction.

Long‐term effectiveness of maxillary sinus floor augmentation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…The approach to the lateral antral wall was performed by a trapdoor technique and/or by preparing an access hole by removal of the buccal bone plate (Table ). AB was harvested from the maxillary sinus region (Bornstein, Chappuis, Von Arx, & Buser, ; Khoury, Keller, & Keeve, ), chin (Bornstein et al., ; Mordenfeld et al., ), tuberosity (Cannizzaro et al., ; Khoury et al., ), ascending mandibular ramus (Bornstein et al., ; Khoury et al., ), anterior iliac crest (Boven, Slot, Raghoebar, Vissink, & Meijer, ; Dasmah, Thor, Ekestubbe, Sennerby, & Rasmusson, ; Slot, Raghoebar, Cune, Vissink, & Meijer, ) or posterior iliac crest (Bornstein et al., ). Deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM; Bio‐Oss, Geistlich Pharma AG, Wolhusen, Switzerland) was used in six studies (Bornstein et al., ; Cannizzaro et al., ; Mordenfeld, Lindgren, & Hallman, ; Mordenfeld et al., ; Oliveira, El Hage, Carrel, Lombardi, & Bernard, ; Özkan, Akoǧlu, & Kulak‐Özkan, ) and synthetic BS (Ceros TCP, Mathys AG, Bettlach, Switzerland and Bone Ceramic, Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) in two studies (Bornstein et al., ; Mordenfeld et al., ).…”

“…In four studies, the window was covered with a resorbable membrane and in one study with a non‐resorbable titanium membrane (Table ). In four studies, no membranes were used of which in two studies AB blocks were fixed on the lateral wall to reconstruct the bone width and thus covered the window (Boven et al., ; Slot et al., ). In one study, the lateral bone window was removed and repositioned after MSFA and placement of the implant (Cricchio et al., ).…”

“…Immediate implant installation was performed in four studies with a healing period ranging from 45 days to 6 months. In delayed approaches, the healing period for the graft material ranged between 3 and 18 months (Bornstein et al., ; Boven et al., ; Dasmah et al., ; Khoury et al., ; Mordenfeld et al., , ; Oliveira et al., ; Slot et al., ).The prosthetic constructions were fixed restorations in nine studies and overdenture with bar‐connection in two studies. Final prosthetic rehabilitation was performed three to six months after implant installation.…”

“…When using BS or a mixture of AB with BS, less volumetric dimensional change occurs when compared to the use of AB alone (Shanbhag, Shanbhag, & Stavropoulos, ). Two other studies showed that volumetric resorption of AB did not compromise implant placement or implant survival (Boven et al., ; Slot et al., )and that long‐term changes in the augmented sinus height were minimal, irrespective of the grafting material used (Starch‐Jensen & Jensen, ). An important limitation, however, is that the results of the studies described in the current review were all based on two‐dimensional quantifications, while the changes occurring in grafted regions are three‐dimensional.…”

“…PROMs are essentially subjective reports of patient perceptions. Understanding the influence of various prosthodontic rehabilitation options on orofacial aesthetics, chewing function and oral health‐related quality of life is an important prerequisite for selecting of the best rehabilitation procedure with the highest treatment effect and lowest morbidity for patients (Boven et al., ). The Oral Health Impact Profile Questionnaire, Orofacial Esthetic Scale and Chewing Function Questionnaire are common PROM methods, although the specificity of these methods is unclear (Vervoorn, Duinkerke, Luteijn, & van de Poel, ).…”