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

Abstract

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.

Occlusal equilibration and muscle activity in fixed versus removable mandibular implant supported overdenture

“…Subsequently, the development of favorable masticatory performance took place in both groups, however, group II was superior to group I in this study. Such a finding coincides with other investigations mentioning the fact that the degree of muscle activity mainly relies on the nature of prosthetic support, stability, and retention [ 20 – 22 ].…”

“…Improvement was achieved through reduced functional complaints, improved appearance, and reduced functional limitations. The implant-supported prosthesis also reduced inappropriate jaw alignment, physical, and psychological disabilities [ 20 , 23 ].…”

“…Accordingly, estimation of any probable discomfort, dysfunction, and disability in rehabilitated edentulous patients and geriatric populations is essential via utilizing the OHIP (Oral Health Impact Profile) which comprises lengthy forty-nine objects, founded on seven theoretical models which are not clinically practical. Consequently, a shorter form that comprises only nineteen questions attained from the original OHIP was established and identified as (OHIP-19) [8,9].…”

Treatment effect of implant‐supported fixed complete dentures and implant overdentures on patient‐reported outcomes: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…The result of the subgroup analysis of the IOD studies in terms of the attachment type suggests that there is no difference between bar‐ or single attachment‐retained/supported IODs. The evidence regarding the effect of the attachment type on dPROs had not been clearly established (Kuoppala et al, 2013; Nejatidanesh et al, 2022). In general, studies have shown that patients are least satisfied with magnet‐retained IODs, but no general superiority of bars over single attachments has yet been demonstrated (Cune et al, 2005; Kim et al, 2012), supporting the result of the present study.…”

“…The result of the subgroup analysis of the IOD studies in terms of the attachment type suggests that there is no difference between bar-or single attachment-retained/supported IODs. The evidence regarding the effect of the attachment type on dPROs had not been clearly established (Kuoppala et al, 2013;Nejatidanesh et al, 2022). In has a positive effect on dPROs Policastro et al, 2019;Schwindling et al, 2018).…”