Overdentures in the Edentulous Mandible Supported by Implants and Retained by a Dolder Bar: A 5‐Year Prospective Study

Heschl, Alexander; Payer, Michael; Clar, V.; Stopper, Marlene; Wegscheider, Walther; Lorenzoni, Martin

doi:10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00380.x

Cited by 21 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the majority of studies, a 2-stage surgical procedure and a conventional loading protocol were carried out, but non-submerged healing (1-stage surgery) followed by immediate prosthetic loading was applied, as well (Table 3) Richter & Knapp (2010) performed either bone splitting or bone spreading but no augmentation in case of heavy bone resorption. Three other studies Heschl et al 2013;Lorenzoni et al 2013) reported not to have applied augmentative or regenerative procedures. The rest of the studies cannot be commented as the authors did not make any statements about bone augmentation.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and meta‐analysis of removable and fixed implant‐supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: post‐loading implant loss

Kern

Wolfart

et al. 2015

Clinical Oral Implants Res

170

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to analyze post‐loading implant loss for implant‐supported prostheses in edentulous jaws, regarding a potential impact of implant location (maxilla vs. mandible), implant number per patient, type of prosthesis (removable vs. fixed), and type of attachment system (screw‐retained, ball vs. bar vs. telescopic crown).Material and methodsA systematic literature search for randomized‐controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies was conducted within PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Quality assessment of the included studies was carried out, and the review was structured according to PRISMA. Implant loss and corresponding 3‐ and 5‐year survival rates were estimated by means of a Poisson regression model with total exposure time as offset.ResultsAfter title, abstract, and full‐text screening, 54 studies were included for qualitative analyses. Estimated 5‐year survival rates of implants were 97.9% [95% CI 97.4; 98.4] in the maxilla and 98.9% [95% CI 98.7; 99.1] in the mandible. Corresponding implant loss rates per 100 implant years were significantly higher in the maxilla (0.42 [95% CI 0.33; 0.53] vs. 0.22 [95% CI 0.17; 0.27]; P = 0.0001). Implant loss rates for fixed restorations were significantly lower compared to removable restorations (0.23 [95% CI 0.18; 0.29] vs. 0.35 [95% CI 0.28; 0.44]; P = 0.0148). Four implants and a fixed restoration in the mandible resulted in significantly higher implant loss rates compared to five or more implants with a fixed restoration. The analysis of one implant and a mandibular overdenture also revealed higher implant loss rates than an overdenture on two implants. The same (lower implant number = higher implant loss rate) applied when comparing 2 vs. 4 implants and a mandibular overdenture. Implant loss rates for maxillary overdentures on <4 implants were significantly higher than for four implants (7.22 [95% CI 5.41; 9.64] vs. 2.31 [1.56; 3.42]; P < 0.0001).ConclusionsImplant location, type of restoration, and implant number do have an influence on the estimated implant loss rate. Consistent reporting of clinical studies is necessary and high‐quality studies are needed to confirm the present results.

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and meta‐analysis of removable and fixed implant‐supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: post‐loading implant loss

Kern

Wolfart

et al. 2015

Clinical Oral Implants Res

170

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Different retaining systems for overdentures have been reported in the literature with satisfactory clinical results (5). Some of the commercially available retaining systems for overdentures are: O'ring attachment, bar-clip system, locators and telescopic crowns (6)(7)(8).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implant Inclination and Horizontal Misfit in Metallic Bar Framework of Overdentures: Analysis By 3D-FEA Method

Caldas

Pfeifer²,

Bacchi

et al. 2018

Braz. Dent. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate by three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA) the biomechanics involved in bar-framework system for overdentures. The studied factors were latero-lateral angulation in the right implant (-10, -5, 0, 5 and 10 degrees), and different bar cross-sections (circular, Hader and oval) presenting horizontal misfits (50 or 150 µm) on the opposite implant. Positive angulation (5 and 10 degrees) for implant inclination to mesial position, negative angulation (-5 and -10 degrees) for distal position, and zero degree for parallel implants. The von Mises stresses evaluated the bar, screw and the implant; maximum principal, minimum principal and shear stress analyses evaluated the peri-implant bone tissue. Parallel implants provide lower stress in alveolar bone tissue; mesial inclined bars showed the most negative effect on prosthetic structures and implants. In conclusion, bar cross-section showed no influence on stress distribution for peri-implant bone tissue, and circular bar provided better behavior to the prosthetic system. Higher stress concentration is provided to all system as the misfit increases.

show abstract

“…As a prospective long‐term investigation concerning older individuals, it is not surprising to see a significant annual dropout rate, consistent with previous medical studies which noted older individuals as more likely to dropout due to co‐morbid conditions (Launer, Wind, & Deeg, ; Rockwood, Stolee, Robertson, & Shillington, ). Nevertheless, having obtained a full set of data at 5 years from 67 out of 80 participants (83.75%) allows for a relatively large sample size within the field and can support reliable conclusions (Elsyad, ; Heschl et al, ). At the terminal point of data collection, the cumulative implant survival rate reached 98.72% which is higher than many reported in other long‐term prospective clinical studies (Balaguer, Ata‐Ali, Peñarrocha‐Oltra, García, & Peñarrocha‐Diago, ; Meijer, Raghoebar, & Van‘t Hof, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) and maintenance events in 2‐implant‐supported mandibular overdenture patients: A 5‐year prospective study

Zhang

Chow

Siu

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To prospectively evaluate patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) and treatment outcomes of mandibular two‐implant retained overdentures (IOD) in an edentulous geriatric cohort with history of deficient complete dentures (CD). Materials and Methods A total of 103 patients with deficient CD received new optimal CD. After a period of 3 months, 80 of the patients voluntarily received IOD. Outcomes collected at pre‐, post‐CD/post‐IOD treatment annually up to 5 years, included (a) Clinical outcomes: denture‐quality (Woelfel's index), complications, and maintenance events, (b) PROMs: patient complaints (maxillary, mandibular functional complaint scores, generic aesthetic complaint scores, frequency, and intensity of complaints) and patient satisfaction, and (c) Maintenance events: technical complications and adverse events. Results Five‐year data were collected from 67 patients (mean age at initiation = 71.3 years, mean observation = 5.9 years) with cumulative implant survival rate = 98.72%. Multiple comparisons for 8 time points showed significant improvements in denture quality and PROMs after new CD and IOD delivery. Further significant improvements were only after IOD delivery in: mandibular denture‐quality, mandibular and generic functional complaints, frequency, intensity of complaints, and overall patient satisfaction score. Thereafter, denture‐quality and PROMs remained stable. Maintenance events clustered on 1st year and within a minority of patients. Technical complications and overall maintenance events significantly correlated with overall patient satisfaction score at 1st year. Conclusions Mandibular IOD was a beneficial treatment option for seniors with history of deficient CD, improving denture‐quality, patient satisfaction, and reducing patient complaints up to 5 years. Maintenance events clustered on 1st year, showing no significant impact on long‐term patient satisfaction and other PROMs.

show abstract

Overdentures in the Edentulous Mandible Supported by Implants and Retained by a Dolder Bar: A 5‐Year Prospective Study

Abstract: Dolder bars to restore oral implants in the edentulous mandible appear to offer a high rate of implant survival, good stability of the peri-implant tissue, and a low rate of prosthetic complications.

Cited by 21 publications

References 37 publications

A systematic review and meta‐analysis of removable and fixed implant‐supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: post‐loading implant loss

A systematic review and meta‐analysis of removable and fixed implant‐supported prostheses in edentulous jaws: post‐loading implant loss

Implant Inclination and Horizontal Misfit in Metallic Bar Framework of Overdentures: Analysis By 3D-FEA Method

Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) and maintenance events in 2‐implant‐supported mandibular overdenture patients: A 5‐year prospective study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About