Implant‐retained mandibular overdentures with ITI implants

Abstract

This prospective study has been designed to compare the results of immediate and delayed loading of implant-retained mandibular overdentures after a 2-year follow-up. Twenty patients have been randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 patients (test group) received four ITI implants in the intraforaminal area of the mandible. Octa abutments were immediately screwed on implants; 2 days after surgery, the implants were rigidly connected with a U-shaped Dolder gold bar and loaded with an overdenture. Group 2 patients (control group) received, in the same area, the same type and number of implants, which were left to heal according to the standard protocol. At 3-4 months, Octa abutments were screwed on the implants and the same prosthetic procedure of the test group was applied. The minimum follow-up period lasted 2 years, with recall appointments at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6 months, 1 year and every following year postoperatively, evaluating: MPI, MBI, PD, Periotest and radiographic peri-implant bone resorption. Success criteria according to Albrektsson et al. were used. Only one implant out of the 40 of group 2 failed, whereas none failed in group 1. No statistical difference of the clinical parameters evaluated was noticed in the two groups. Therefore, immediate loading of implants, if connected with a U-shaped bar, can provide the same results of the 'traditional' technique as far as osseointegration and short-term survival rates of implants are concerned. Moreover, this method significantly shortens the treatment period, thus increasing patient satisfaction.

A systematic review of marginal soft tissue at implants subjected to immediate loading or immediate restoration

“…More recently, Romeo et al (2002) published a prospective comparative study on immediate vs. delayed loading of implant‐supported bar‐retained overdentures in the lower jaw using a protocol identical to that described by Chiapasco et al (2001). In total, 20 patients with edentulous mandibles were randomly assigned to the two groups.…”

Rehabilitation of irradiated patients with modified and conventional sandblasted acid-etched implants: preliminary results of a split-mouth study

“…Literature reveals that soft tissue may be affected by irradiation (Kovács 2000a, 2000b; Romeo et al 2002; Yerit et al 2006). Causes might be the post‐operative and post‐irradiation xerostomia, different saliva quantity and quality and altered microflora as well as the presence of scar tissue after reconstruction and the loss of attached and keratinized gingiva adjacent to the implants (Landes & Kovács 2006; Yerit et al 2006).…”

Comparison of early telescope loading of non‐submerged ITI implants in irradiated and non‐irradiated oral cancer patients

“…Plaque and peri‐implant bleeding index remained typically high compared with non‐cancer patients (McGhee et al 1997; Kovács 2000a,b; Romeo et al 2002). Oral hygiene and compliance were limited although patients received individual oral hygiene instruction.…”

“…Sandblasted and acid‐etched implant surface (SLA) has shown superior osseointegration characteristics over a machined or sandblasted and a titanium plasma‐sprayed implant surface (TPS), while the latter is still the second best alternative (Wilke et al 1990; Buser et al 1991; Cochran et al 1996). This advancement of implant technology made non‐submerged placement and early or immediate loading feasible in healthy subjects (Ericsson et al 2000; Roynesdal et al 2001; Romeo et al 2002; Payne et al 2003).…”