Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures: Part I—retention, stability, and tissue response

Burns, David R.; Unger, John W.; Elswick, R. K.; Beck, D

doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(05)80331-2

Cited by 131 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First of all, 2 anterior implants are usually considered the minimum number to provide support, retention and stability for mandibular overdenture treatment. 22,25 The minimal number of implants has also economic benefit to the patient. 26 Misch9 had predicted 100% success rate for implants placed in the type of bone which is present in the anterior mandible.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosthetic restoration types of dental implants

Kayahan¹,

Kazazoğlu²

2017

Yeditepe J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Aim:The aim of this study was to evalute the prevalence of different prosthetic restoration types of dental implants in a Turkish subpopulation. Materials and Methods: A retrospective evaluation was conducted by examining the digital patient record system of the faculty. Age, gender, edentulism, implant sites, replaced tooth numbers and restoration types were recorded. Descriptive statistical methods and Chi-square test were used to analyze data. An alpha level of 0.05 was used for all statistical analyses. Results: There were 368 patients with 1143 implants which were placed to maxilla in 116 patients (31.5%), mandible in 179 patients (48.6%), and maxilla and mandible in 73 patients (19.8%). They were in anterior region in 58 patients (15.8%), posterior region in 245 patients (66.6%), and anterior and posterior region in 65 patients (17.7%). Two hundred and nine patients (56.8%) had single-unit fixed partial dentures (S-FPDs), 83 patients (22.6%) had multi-unit fixed partial dentures (M-FPDs), 44 patients (12%) had both S-FPDs and M-FPDs, and 32 patients (8.7%) had overdentures. Conclusions:The great majority of patients treated with dental implants had S-FPDs. Only 8% of patients had overdentures. The most implant treated sites were mandible and posterior regions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosthetic restoration types of dental implants

Kayahan¹,

Kazazoğlu²

2017

Yeditepe J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even years later, additional implants can be added to the treatment plan. Moreover, less soft tissue is covered, which is especially important for those who just want to use dentures (1,(10)(11)(12)(13)(14). The first advantage of overdentures, when compared to complete fixed prostheses, is the lower cost of the treatment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Clinical and Radiographic Signs of Implants in Patients With Implant Retained Mandibular Overdentures

Khoshhal¹,

Vafaee²,

Moradi³

et al. 2016

Avicenna J Dent Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The minimum standard treatment plan for the reconstruction of an edentulous mandible, according to York, is an overdenture supported by two implants. Objectives: The aims of this study were to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes and peri-implant marginal bone loss around implants in patients treated with mandibular overdentures supported by 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 implants. Materials and Methods: A total of 25 patients with a mean age of 62.7 years old, who were treated with implant supported mandibular overdentures at Hamedan's faculty of dentistry, were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Among these patients, 6 had overdentures supported by one implant, 9 had overdentures supported by two implants, 2 had overdentures supported by three implants, 5 had overdentures supported by 4 implants, and 3 had overdentures supported by 5 implants. The clinical and radiographic parameters around the implants were assessed, including: probing depth, width of keratinized gingiva, bleeding on probing, peri-implant inflammation, calculus formation, implant mobility, adverse events, and radiographic signs of peri-implant bone loss (distance between the implant shoulder and the level of the mesial and distal proximal bone). The ANOVA and the Fisher's Exact test were used to evaluate the significant differences among the groups. Results: None of the implants had loosened and no adverse events were seen around the implants. Additionally, the clinical variables did not show significant correlation with the number of implants. Overall, the bone resorption showed an inverse and significant relationship with the number of implants (P = 0.001). Conclusions: With mandibular overdentures supported by 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 implants, favorable clinical outcomes can be achieved. However, when increasing the number of implants, marginal bone loss decreases. For example, the patients with five implants showed less marginal bone loss than those with a lesser number of implants.

show abstract

“…The benefits of implant-retained/ supported mandibular implant overdenture (IOD) treatment relative to conventional mandibular denture treatment have been well documented [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Half of all conventional mandibular dentures demonstrate problems with prosthesis stability and retention, with retention being the single most important deficiency reported [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As increasing numbers of implants are used, it is possible they will assume a greater role with treatment outcome, particularly involving prosthesis support [14].However, more implants may not translate to improved prosthesis retention and/or stability, and subsequent treatment outcome may be relatively unaltered, [14] other than a slight increased risk from additional treatment and added expense. Zarb and Schmitt [15] and Visser et al [16] indicatedthat successful IOD treatment outcome can be achieved regardless of the number of implants used, but this concept remains controversial [14] Two implants have been considered the minimum necessary for mandibular IOD treatment [1,15] and can be used either with independent, unsplinted attachments or splinted together using a cast metal bar and bar-clip attachment [17] Four implantssplinted with 3 interconnecting bar and bar-clip attachments is another treatment alternative. With a lack of consensus regarding the number of implants necessary for mandibular implant overdenture treatment, the best choice of an attachment mechanism between the implants and denture base also remains controversial.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Cantileverd Bar Length on Strain Around Two and Four-Implants Supporting A Mandibular Over-Denture

2015

IJSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statement of problem: There is little information as to how the cantilevered bar length affect the strain around two and four implants supporting a mandibular over denture Purpose: measure the effect of cantilevered bar length on strain produced around twoimplant and four-implant supporting a mandibular over denture ,and evaluating the amount of stress reaching the supporting structures. Materials and methods: Two root-form implants were placed bilaterally in the canine region of an edentulous acrylic mandibular model (group A). Also four root-form implants were placed in the canine & bicuspid region of another edentulous acrylic mandibular model (group B). The implants on each model were connected with a resilient bar/clip attachment with the following lengths of cantilevered bar length: 11mm, 9mm and 7mm .Four linear strain gauges were bonded to the acrylic resin at the mesial & distal surface of each implant. Each gauge was wired separately into a 1/4 Wheatstone bridge of a multichannel digital bridge amplifier. Strains were measured on each model. Strain measurements were performed under central loading using a loading device. Results: when using two or four implants, the 11mm cantilevered bar length generated the highest peri-implant strain values, while the 7mm cantilever length recorded the lowest under central loading conditions. A positive correlation between the cantilever length and the periimplant strain was found. The same effect was found on the supporting structures. Conclusion: The 7mm cantilevered bar with clips placed on the cantilevers was recommended when 2 or 4 implants were used to support mandibular over dentures as it demonstrated the lowest magnitude of strains with no significant differences between peri-implant sites

show abstract

Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures: Part I—retention, stability, and tissue response

Cited by 131 publications

References 12 publications

Prosthetic restoration types of dental implants

Prosthetic restoration types of dental implants

Evaluation of Clinical and Radiographic Signs of Implants in Patients With Implant Retained Mandibular Overdentures

Effect of Cantileverd Bar Length on Strain Around Two and Four-Implants Supporting A Mandibular Over-Denture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About