Mandibular overdentures supported by two Brånemark, IMZ or ITI implants: a 5‐year prospective study

Meijer, Henny J. A.; Batenburg, Rutger H. K.; Raghoebar, Gerry M.; Vissink, Arjan

doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.2004.00510.x

Cited by 74 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6] However, not all implants are successful and some fail as a result of bone loss and inflammatory reactions along the implant-tissue interface. In most cases, failure of loaded implants is accompanied with a gradual process of breakdown of supporting soft and hard tissues.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Significance of the Width of Keratinized Mucosa on the Health Status of the Supporting Tissue Around Implants Supporting Overdentures

Adibrad¹,

Shahabuei²,

Sahabi³

2009

Journal of Oral Implantology

144

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our objective was to determine the association between keratinized mucosa width and the health status of the supporting tissue around implants supporting overdentures. Sixty-six functioning dental implants were examined. Periodontal parameters measured included gingival index, plaque index, bleeding on probing, probing depth, mucosal recession, periodontal attachment level, radiographic bone level, and width of keratinized mucosa. A negative correlation was found between keratinized mucosa width and mucosal recession and periodontal attachment level. When data were dichotomized by keratinized mucosa width, the mean gingival index score, plaque index score, and bleeding on probing were significantly higher for those implants with a narrow zone (< 2 mm) of keratinized mucosa. A wider mucosal band (> or = 2 mm) was associated with less mucosal recession and periodontal attachment loss compared with a narrow (< 2 mm) band. The absence of adequate keratinized mucosa around implants supporting overdentures was associated with higher plaque accumulation, gingival inflammation, bleeding on probing, and mucosal recession.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Significance of the Width of Keratinized Mucosa on the Health Status of the Supporting Tissue Around Implants Supporting Overdentures

Adibrad¹,

Shahabuei²,

Sahabi³

2009

Journal of Oral Implantology

144

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Many studies showed effective results using 2 TPS implants (rather than 4) for supported mandibular overdenture treatment. [2][3][4][5] In conclusion, this study provided additional evidence that 2 implants are as effective as 4 for supporting an overdenture. ; PTV = Periotest value; TPS = titanium plasma-sprayed screw implants (control); SD = standard deviation.…”

Section: Commentary and Analysismentioning

confidence: 83%

Comparison of 2 treatment concepts for implant-supported bar-retained overdentures demonstrates equivalence regarding efficacy and safety

Rocha

2005

Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The mandibular arch was selected for implant placement because problems involving lack of stability and retention were always encountered with mandibular denture [13]. The implants were placed in the region of the cuspids in between the two mental foramina at best bone quality and to avoid injury to the inferior alveolar nerve in the posterior region of the mandible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Monoplane Occlusion and Median Ligualized Occlusion in Implant-Retained Mandibular Complete Overdenture

El-Dayem¹,

Mahmoud²,

Asaad³

et al. 2016

J Dent Oro Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To compare median lingualized and monoplane occlusion in Implant retained mandibular overdenture with ball and socket attachment. Materials and Methods:Ten completely edentulous patients were selected to receive with dental implants. Each patient received two cylinders with reversed screw and hydroxyapetite coated dental implants, one implant on each side in the canine regions of the mandible. The implants were left submerged (unloaded) for a healing and osseointegration period of four months. The patients were divided into two groups, five patients in each. Group I patients received overdenture retained by ball and socket attachment, the artificial teeth were arranged in a median lingualized occlusion, and Group II patients received overdenture retained by ball and socket attachment but the artificial teeth were arranged in a monoplane occlusion. All patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically immediately after overdenture delivery and after 6 and 12 months. Results and conclusion:There was no statistically significant difference between median lingualized and monoplane occlusion in implants supporting a mandibular overdenture retained by ball & socket attachment. From the clinical point of view, satisfactory results were obtained when two dental implants were placed in the intraforaminal region of the mandible and connected with ball and socket attachment to support and retain mandibular overdenture. These satisfactory results were obtained with median lingualized occlusion as well as with monoplane ones.

show abstract

Mandibular overdentures supported by two Brånemark, IMZ or ITI implants: a 5‐year prospective study

Cited by 74 publications

References 14 publications

Significance of the Width of Keratinized Mucosa on the Health Status of the Supporting Tissue Around Implants Supporting Overdentures

Significance of the Width of Keratinized Mucosa on the Health Status of the Supporting Tissue Around Implants Supporting Overdentures

Comparison of 2 treatment concepts for implant-supported bar-retained overdentures demonstrates equivalence regarding efficacy and safety

Comparison of Monoplane Occlusion and Median Ligualized Occlusion in Implant-Retained Mandibular Complete Overdenture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About