A prospective cohort on the incidence of fractures in single-implant mandibular overdentures

Paula, Marcella Silva de; Cardoso, Joyce Borges; Menezes, Eunice Ellen Gontijo de; Nogueira, Túlio Eduardo; McKenna, Gerald; Leles, Cláudio Rodrigues

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103521

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fracture occurred in 11.7% of studied overdentures (Table 3). Fracture rate of 6%–36.1% has been reported in other studies 11,25–29 . Fractures of implant‐supported overdentures occur in the stress concentrated areas over the implant 27 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical performance of implant supported mandibular overdentures with cantilever bar and stud attachments: A retrospective study

Nejatidanesh

Bonakdarchian

Savabi

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Treatment of edentulous patients with implant‐supported over‐dentures improves denture's retention and stability. Published data concerning implant‐supported overdenture with cantilever bars that claimed that can affect the survival and bone loss of implants are scarce. Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate 5‐year clinical performance of mandibular implant‐supported over‐dentures with different attachment systems. Materials and methods In this retrospective study, 103 patients who had received mandibular over‐dentures supported by two implants were evaluated in a 5‐year follow up. Studied groups were patients with Spherblock ball attachment (58 patients), Dolder bar with cantilever (36 patients), and Locator attachment (9 patients). Marginal bone‐loss around implants, prosthetic complications, soft tissue status of the implants (gingival index, plaque index, pocket depth, and bleeding on probing) were used to compare studied groups. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) criteria was used to assay patient's satisfaction. One‐way ANOVA, Scheffe, Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney, and Fisher's exact tests, were used for the data analysis (α = 0.05). Results One hundred and three patients (46 male, 57 female, mean age 64.7 ± 8.6) with 206 implants (Strauman) were studied. The implant survival rate was 100% with mean bone loss of 0.22 mm around implants in 5 years. Prosthetic complications including attachment wear and denture fracture occurred more often with ball attachments. The number of attachment replacement, and post insertion appointments were significantly less in patients with bar attachments (p < 0.05). Pocket depth and gingival index were less in the ball attachment (p < 0.05). Conclusion Mandibular overdenture supported by two implants can be considered a successful treatment in edentulous patients. The frequency of prosthetic complication is higher in unsplinted than splinted superstructures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Fracture rate of 6%-36.1% has been reported in other studies. 11,[25][26][27][28][29] Fractures of implant-supported overdentures occur in the stress concentrated areas over the implant. 27 Reinforcement of the denture base in these areas may prevent fractures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical performance of implant supported mandibular overdentures with cantilever bar and stud attachments: A retrospective study

Nejatidanesh

Bonakdarchian

Savabi

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Denture fracture is a recurrent complaint when evaluating mandibular overdentures, mainly those supported by a single implant, as the acrylic resin base becomes reduced and thin in the midline region to accommodate the attachment. 5,13,14,29 For this reason, a metallic framework was included in the anterior region to reduce the stress concentration and minimize overdenture fracture. 8,11,36,38 This did not impair other SIO components, such as attachments or the proper implant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given that single-implant mandibular overdentures are at high risk of midline fractures, 29 and modification of the prosthesis manufacturing technique may influence its acceptance and consequently treatment success, 30 it is also important to evaluate individual preferences and self-perceived needs 31 when using a modified method. Thus, this paired clinical study aimed to evaluate the prosthetic maintenance events and patient satisfaction with an SIO reinforced with a metallic framework during a 24month follow-up period.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single implant overdenture reinforced with a metallic framework: A 2‐year clinical follow‐up

Pinheiro

Amaral

Meira

et al. 2021

Special Care in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: To prevent single-implant overdenture (SIO) fracture, the inclusion of a framework in the overdenture has been suggested. However, no investigations verified their benefits.Objective: To evaluate prosthetic maintenance events, patient satisfaction, and mastication of SIO reinforced by metallic framework users.Material and methods: Fifteen volunteers had a new set of complete dentures converted into an SIO containing a framework. Maintenance events were recorded, while patient satisfaction was assessed using a visual analog scale. Masticatory performance (MP) was evaluated using the sieving method, maximum bite force (MBF) by pressure sensors, and masseter thickness by ultrasound.Measurements were performed 2, 12, and 24 months after SIO use. Repeatedmeasures ANOVA and paired Student's t-tests (p < 0.05) were applied.Results: Matrix exchange was the most prevalent maintenance event (83.6%), and no SIO was fractured during the entire follow-up. Satisfaction with the SIO stability decreased (p < 0.01) after 12 months. MP did not change between evaluations (p > 0.05). Conversely, MBF and masseter thickness improved after 12 and 24 months of SIO use (p < 0.05).Conclusions: Reinforced SIO did not fracture during 2 years but requires maintenance. It improves bite force and muscle thickness, maintaining MP values.Satisfaction with SIO stability decreased in the first year of use.

show abstract

“…Clinical studies have reported denture fracture as a common complication that occurs in SIMO. [11][12][13] The fracture occurs primarily in the anterior region of the overdenture, where the presence of an attachment system reduces the thickness of the overdenture base. [14][15][16] The high concentration of compressive stresses in the vicinity of the attachment housing may lead to SIMO fractures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Single Implant-Retained Mandibular Overdentures Reinforced With Polyether Ether Ketone and Metallic Frameworks: A Comparative Study of Crestal Bone Loss and Prosthetic Maintenance.

Youssef

Shawky

2023

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Statement of problem:Studies have shown the efficacy of mandibular overdentures retained by a single implant for oral rehabilitation of edentulous patients. The primary complication of these overdentures has been reported to be their high incidence of midline fracture. The addition of a reinforcing framework to the acrylic denture base can prevent fractures and ensure the durability of overdenture treatment. Purpose: The aim was to compare crestal bone loss and prosthetic maintenance events of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures (SIMO) reinforced by Polyetherether ketone (PEEK) and metallic frameworks after a two-year follow-up period.Materials and methods: Twenty-two edentulous patients received SIMOs containing reinforcing frameworks. The resin patterns of the frameworks were printed using CAD/CAM. The printed castable resin frameworks were processed using either PEEK by injection molding technique (PEEK group) or cobalt-chromium metal by conventional casting techniques (Metal group). Crestal bone loss was evaluated using digital radiography and prosthetic maintenance events were analyzed. The follow-up period was two years after overdenture loading.Results: There was a slight increase in crestal bone loss in the Metal group compared to the PEEK group, but the difference was statistically insignificant. There was no overdenture fracture, crack, or abutment fracture in either group. No significant differences in prosthodontic maintenance events between the two groups were noted. Conclusions:Based on the limitations of this study, it is concluded that the crestal bone loss and prosthetic maintenance results of SIMO reinforced with a PEEK framework were comparable to those of metal reinforcement.

show abstract

A prospective cohort on the incidence of fractures in single-implant mandibular overdentures

Cited by 14 publications

References 29 publications

Clinical performance of implant supported mandibular overdentures with cantilever bar and stud attachments: A retrospective study

Clinical performance of implant supported mandibular overdentures with cantilever bar and stud attachments: A retrospective study

Single implant overdenture reinforced with a metallic framework: A 2‐year clinical follow‐up

Single Implant-Retained Mandibular Overdentures Reinforced With Polyether Ether Ketone and Metallic Frameworks: A Comparative Study of Crestal Bone Loss and Prosthetic Maintenance.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About