Dataset Information

Maxillary Implant-Supported Overdentures: Mechanical Behavior Comparing Individual Axial and Bar Retention Systems. A Cohort Study of Edentulous Patients.

ABSTRACT: Background and objectives: To compare the medium- to long-term mechanical behavior of overdentures with two different retention systems: overdentures with Locator® axial retention, and vertical insertion overdentures with bar retention, used to rehabilitate edentulous maxillar. Material and Methods: This prospective study assessed patients presenting complete maxillary edentulism, rehabilitated by means of implant-supported overdentures (n = 20), 10 with Locator® axial retention (ODA group) and 10 with overdentures on bars (ODB group). Patients also completed a questionnaire to determine their satisfaction with treatment. Results: The mean follow-up time in both groups was 11.4 years, with follow-up times in both groups ranging from 5 to 14 years. The ODA group suffered mechanical complications such as retention loss, need for nylon retention insert changes, resin fracture, and need for relining. In the ODB group, prosthetic dental wear, screw loosening, and complete prosthetic failure were more common. A total of 19 implants failed (23.8%); of these, 11 were in the ODA group (failure rate = 27.5%) and eight in the ODB group (failure rate = 20%). The patient satisfaction questionnaire obtained a mean score of 7.9 out of 10 in the ODA group, and 9.75 in the ODB group. Conclusions: in rehabilitations of edentulous maxillar by means of implant-supported overdentures, both the systems assessed were shown to be effective in the medium to long term. Patients expressed a high level of satisfaction with the treatments received.

SUBMITTER: Manes Ferrer JF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7143068 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Maxillary Implant-Supported Overdentures: Mechanical Behavior Comparing Individual Axial and Bar Retention Systems. A Cohort Study of Edentulous Patients.

Mañes Ferrer José Félix JF Fernández-Estevan Lucía L Selva-Otaolaurruchi Eduardo E Labaig-Rueda Carlos C Solá-Ruíz María Fernanda MF Agustín-Panadero Rubén R

Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) 20200319 3

Background and objectives: To compare the medium- to long-term mechanical behavior of overdentures with two different retention systems: overdentures with Locator® axial retention, and vertical insertion overdentures with bar retention, used to rehabilitate edentulous maxillar. Material and Methods: This prospective study assessed patients presenting complete maxillary edentulism, rehabilitated by means of implant-supported overdentures (n = 20), 10 with Locator® axial reten ...[more]

PMID: 32204564

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo evaluate the influence of primary insertion torque (IT) values of narrow dental implants on the peri-implant health, implant stability, immunoinflammatory responses, bone loss, and success and survival rates.MethodsThirty-one edentulous patients received two narrow implants (2.9x10mm, Facility NeoPoros) to retain mandibular overdentures. The implants were categorized in four groups according to their IT: (G1) IT > 10 Ncm; (G2) IT ≥ 10Ncm and ≤ 30 Ncm; (G3) IT >30Ncm and < 45Ncm; (G4) IT ≥ 45Ncm, and all implants were loaded after 3 months of healing. The following clinical outcomes were evaluated 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after implant insertion: (i) peri-implant tissue health (PH), gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI), calculus presence (CP), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BOP); (ii) implant stability quotient (ISQ) by resonance frequency analysis; and (iii) IL-1β and TNF-α concentration in the peri-implant crevicular fluid. The marginal bone level (MBL) and changes (MBC) were evaluated. The Chi2 test, Kruskal-Wallis test, mixed-effects regression analysis, and the Kendall rank correlation coefficient were used for statistical analysis (α = 5%).ResultsG1 presented the highest PD at all evaluated periods. G2 presented higher PI at month 6 and 12. G4 showed increased GI at month 3 and 12 and more CP at month 1 (p=.003). G2 and G4 had higher ISQ values over the study period, while those from G1 and G3 presented lower ISQ values. The IL-1β concentration increased until month 12 and was independent of IT and bone type; G4 had a higher IL-1β concentration in month 3 than the other groups (p=.015). The TNF-α release was negatively correlated with IT, and TNF-α release was highest in G1 at month 12. The MBL immediately after surgery and the MBC at month 12 were similar between the groups, and G4 presented a positive MBC at month 12. The survival and success rates were 75% for G1, 81.3% for G2, 64.3% for G3, and 95% for G4.ConclusionThe IT did not influence the clinical outcomes and the peri-implant immunoinflammatory responses and was weakly correlated with the narrow dental implants primary stability. The observed success rates suggest that the ideal IT for atrophic fully edentulous patients may deviate from the standardized IT of 32 Ncm.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to analyze post-loading implant loss for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant location (maxilla vs. mandible), implant number per patient, type of prosthesis (removable vs. fixed), and type of attachment system (screw-retained, ball vs. bar vs. telescopic crown).Material and methodsA systematic literature search for randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies was conducted within PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Quality assessment of the included studies was carried out, and the review was structured according to PRISMA. Implant loss and corresponding 3- and 5-year survival rates were estimated by means of a Poisson regression model with total exposure time as offset.ResultsAfter title, abstract, and full-text screening, 54 studies were included for qualitative analyses. Estimated 5-year survival rates of implants were 97.9% [95% CI 97.4; 98.4] in the maxilla and 98.9% [95% CI 98.7; 99.1] in the mandible. Corresponding implant loss rates per 100 implant years were significantly higher in the maxilla (0.42 [95% CI 0.33; 0.53] vs. 0.22 [95% CI 0.17; 0.27]; P = 0.0001). Implant loss rates for fixed restorations were significantly lower compared to removable restorations (0.23 [95% CI 0.18; 0.29] vs. 0.35 [95% CI 0.28; 0.44]; P = 0.0148). Four implants and a fixed restoration in the mandible resulted in significantly higher implant loss rates compared to five or more implants with a fixed restoration. The analysis of one implant and a mandibular overdenture also revealed higher implant loss rates than an overdenture on two implants. The same (lower implant number = higher implant loss rate) applied when comparing 2 vs. 4 implants and a mandibular overdenture. Implant loss rates for maxillary overdentures on <4 implants were significantly higher than for four implants (7.22 [95% CI 5.41; 9.64] vs. 2.31 [1.56; 3.42]; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsImplant location, type of restoration, and implant number do have an influence on the estimated implant loss rate. Consistent reporting of clinical studies is necessary and high-quality studies are needed to confirm the present results.

Project description:BackgroundImplant-supported overdentures offer enhanced mechanical properties, which lead to better patient satisfaction and survival rates than conventional dentures. However, it is unclear whether these satisfaction levels and survival rates depend on the number of implants supporting the overdenture. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to compare maxillary overdentures supported by four or six splinted implants in terms of patient satisfaction, implant survival, overdenture survival, and prosthodontic complications.MethodsCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), and EMBASE databases were systematically searched and complemented by hand searching from 2000 to 2019, employing a combination of specific keywords. Studies comparing the use of four versus six implants for supporting overdentures with at least one-year of follow-up after prosthesis installation and including ten fully edentulous patients were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was analyzed with Cochrane's RoB 2 and Newcastle-Ottawa tools. Implants and prosthesis survival rates were analyzed by random-effects meta-analysis and expressed as risk ratios or risk differences, respectively, and by the non-parametric unpaired Fisher's test.ResultsA total of 15 from 1865 articles were included, and reported follow-up times after implant placement ranged from 1 to 10 years. Irrespective of the number of implants used, high scores were reported by all studies investigating patient satisfaction. Meta-analysis and non-parametric Fisher's test showed no statistical differences regarding the survival rate of implants (P = 0.34, P = 0.3) or overdentures (P = 0.74, P = 0.9) when using 4 versus 6 splinted implants to support overdentures, and no significant differences regarding prosthodontic complications were found between groups. Randomized studies presented high RoB and non-randomized studies presented acceptable quality.ConclusionsWithin the limits of this systematic review, we can conclude that the bar-supported overdenture on four implants is not inferior to the overdenture supported by six implants for rehabilitating the edentulous maxilla, in terms of patient satisfaction, survival rates of implants and overdentures, and prosthodontic complications.

Dataset Information

Maxillary Implant-Supported Overdentures: Mechanical Behavior Comparing Individual Axial and Bar Retention Systems. A Cohort Study of Edentulous Patients.

Publications

Maxillary Implant-Supported Overdentures: Mechanical Behavior Comparing Individual Axial and Bar Retention Systems. A Cohort Study of Edentulous Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets