Crestal bone–level changes and patient satisfaction with mandibular overdentures retained by one or two implants with immediate loading protocols: A randomized controlled clinical study

Patil, Pravinkumar G.; Seow, Liang Lin

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.07.015

Cited by 16 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This could explain why the marginal bone level was only affected by changes within the normal range. The radiographic marginal bone loss in this study was consistent with the results of other studies (32)(33)(34) in which the implants were delayed loaded with Locator-retained mandibular overdentures. Furthermore, patients in both study groups were subjected to frequent recall visits and instructed to perform high standards of oral hygiene.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Peri-implant marginal bone height changes in implant-retained overdentures constructed by CAD/CAM or conventional processing technique- A one-year clinical follow-up.

Shaheen

Aly

2021

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate and compare the peri-implant marginal bone height changes in two implant retained overdentures constructed by either CAD/CAM technology or conventional processing techniques. Background:The digital denture using CAD/CAM technology has proved high beneficial to the elders and/or the compromised edentulous patient, as it can help decrease the treatment burden on the patient by reducing the clinical procedures, number of visits, treatment time, and incurred costs. Materials and Methods:Twenty completely edentulous patients participated in this study. The patients were randomly allocated to two equal groups of patients (Group A and group B). Group A patients received complete dentures constructed by conventional heat cured technique. Group B patients received complete dentures constructed by CAD/CAM technology. All the patients received two root form implants bilaterally in the canine regions following delayed loading protocol. Locator attachment was then used to retain the overdenture after 3 months healing period. Marginal bone height was radiographically evaluated at baseline, 6 and 12 months after implant loading.Results: There was a significant loss in marginal bone height around the supporting implants in each study group. However, no significant differences in marginal bone height were recorded between the study groups over the observation period (P > 0.05). Conclusion:Peri-implant marginal bone height changes with overdentures fabricated by CAD/ CAM technique are not different from those changes with overdentures fabricated by a conventional heat curd technique.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Peri-implant marginal bone height changes in implant-retained overdentures constructed by CAD/CAM or conventional processing technique- A one-year clinical follow-up.

Shaheen

Aly

2021

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, except for masticatory function, both patients with one and two implants were satisfied with the treatments performed. These results add to the findings by Patil and Seow [21], who analyzed 24 patients divided into two groups (one and two mandibular implants) and concluded there were no differences between the maintenance of alveolar bone height and the satisfaction of both groups after 1 year. In the present study, initially, 10 participants were chosen for each study group (group A and group B).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…Such healthy gingival conditions are probably due to the adequate oral hygiene practiced by the patients of the sample, considering the gingival tissues around all implants studied showed signs of mild inflammation. Thus, it may be inferred that advanced age and reduced ability of elderly patients do not represent a higher risk for the development of peri-implant injuries [21]. This was confirmed by the results of this study, in which satisfactory peri-implant mucous parameters were compatible with tissues throughout the follow-up period.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Clinical and satisfaction outcomes of using one or two dental implants for mandibular overdentures: preliminary short-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This randomized clinical trial aimed to evaluate the marginal bone loss and peri-implant aspects in patients with mandibular overdentures retained by one or two implants and assess patient satisfaction, prosthesis-related clinical outcomes, and masticatory efficiency. Methods Patients from the School of Dentistry of the University of Passo Fundo (UPF) with lower conventional complete dentures dissatisfied with prosthetic retention were selected. Eighteen patients were analyzed and divided into randomized treatment groups: GA, installation of one implant in the midline of the mandibular symphysis (8 patients), and GB, installation of two implants in the lower canine region (10 patients). Implant survival and prosthetic maintenance were assessed by clinical and radiographic examinations performed 6 months after implant placement and 3 months after loading. Finally, the masticatory efficiency of the prostheses was evaluated with the QoLIP-10 (Quality of Life with Implant-Prostheses) questionnaire, and the degree of patient satisfaction used the visual analog scale (VAS). Results Regarding the esthetic satisfaction of the patients, there was no statistical difference between the two groups studied (p = 0.680). Patients who received two implants presented easier chewing (p = 0.049) and a lower average number of prosthesis maintenance. There was no difference between the groups regarding peri-implant bone resorption 3 months after the use of prostheses. Conclusions The use of two dental implants showed higher masticatory ability and lower need for maintenance appointments when compared with one implant in mandibular overdentures but did not affect peri-implant aspects and patient satisfaction. The treatment using one implant was effective for the aspects evaluated, but further clinical studies are required on the subject.

show abstract

“…Eighteen studies were excluded for the following reasons (Supplementary Table 2). The other 28 studies were included in this NMA, including 19 randomized controlled trials [6][7][8][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38], six retrospective studies [11,[39][40][41][42][43], and three prospective studies [44][45][46].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of attachment type and number of dental implants supporting mandibular overdenture on peri-implant health: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Aldhohrah

Mashrah

et al. 2022

J Prosthodont Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conventional complete dentures have long been considered as one of the treatment options for restoring the esthetics and function of edentulous patients. It has the advantages of being the cheapest treatment for replacing the entire teeth in the upper and lower jaws, the shortest treatment time from start to finish, and an esthetically acceptable treatment regime. However, it has inherent disadvantages, such as low retention, lack of stability, and low chewing efficiency, especially in patients with alveolar ridge atrophy [1,2]. Implant-supported fixed dentures are still considered the best treatment option for the rehabilitation of edentulous patients; however, many patients cannot afford the high price of such treatment. Therefore, to overcome the lack of retention and stability of conventional dentures, particularly in the mandible, and the high cost of implant-supported fixed prostheses, implant-supported overdentures (ODs) have long been considered alternative treatment options. It is a removable prosthesis supported by single, two, or more dental implants via attachment systems (e.g., ball, bar, locator, magnet, or resilient telescopic). This treatment has been reported to be superior to conventional dentures in terms of patient satisfaction, function (ability to speak and chew, comfort, social contact), and quality of life [3][4][5].To date, a heated debate still exists regarding the effect of different OD attachment systems (OAS) and different numbers of dental implants on peri-implant health [6][7][8][9]. Although mandibular two implant-supported ODs are considered the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients, according to the York Consensus Statement[10] evidence regarding the number of dental implants and attachment systems for supporting mandibular ODs has the least marginal bone loss (MBL), pocket probing depth (PPD), bleeding index (BI), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI) and higher implant survival rate (ISR) is lacking.

show abstract

Crestal bone–level changes and patient satisfaction with mandibular overdentures retained by one or two implants with immediate loading protocols: A randomized controlled clinical study

Cited by 16 publications

References 15 publications

Peri-implant marginal bone height changes in implant-retained overdentures constructed by CAD/CAM or conventional processing technique- A one-year clinical follow-up.

Peri-implant marginal bone height changes in implant-retained overdentures constructed by CAD/CAM or conventional processing technique- A one-year clinical follow-up.

Clinical and satisfaction outcomes of using one or two dental implants for mandibular overdentures: preliminary short-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial

Effects of attachment type and number of dental implants supporting mandibular overdenture on peri-implant health: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About