Single versus two‐implant mandibular overdentures using early‐loaded titanium‐zirconium implants with hydrophilic surface and ball attachments: 1‐year randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Objective This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the outcomes of the mandibular overdenture retained by one (1‐IOD) or two (2‐IOD) implants. Materials and methods Participants received new complete dentures, were assessed at baseline and randomly assigned to groups. Early loaded single midline implant (1‐IOD) or two implants in the canine regions bilaterally (2‐IOD). Ball attachments were used for overdenture retention. Post‐treatment outcomes (6‐ and 12‐month follow‐ups) included patient satisfaction, oral health‐related quality of life measures, and chewing function. Data analysis included within‐ and between‐group comparisons, and Generalized Estimating Equations. Both superiority and non‐inferiority hypotheses were tested. Results Forty‐seven participants were included (1‐IOD = 23; 2‐IOD = 24). Significant improvements in OHIP‐Edent were observed after insertion of new dentures and at the 1‐year follow‐up compared with baseline. No differences were found between the 1‐ and 2‐IOD groups for the OHIP‐Edent and QoLFAST scores. Patient satisfaction with the mandibular denture improved significantly from baseline to the 6‐month follow‐up and remained unaltered until 1 year, with no differences between groups. The magnitudes of treatment effect sizes were moderate to large for patient‐reported outcomes. Progressive improvement in chewing function occurred in both groups. Non‐inferiority testing based on a 15% non‐inferiority margin showed inconclusive results for patient‐reported outcomes, whilst chewing function in the 1‐IOD group was concluded to be not inferior to the 2‐IOD group. Conclusions Results support the use of both 1‐ and 2‐IOD. The 1‐IOD was also an acceptable alternative to the 2‐IOD as a secondary option for the treatment of the edentulous mandible.

Postsurgical oral symptoms after insertion of one or two implants for mandibular overdentures: short-term results of a randomized clinical trial

“…The study protocol was previously registered (NCT03691285) and approved by the local ethical research committee (CAEE 65240617.5.0000.5083). A detailed description of the randomized clinical trial is previously published [13], which includes the 1-year results of comparative changes in oral health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction, and chewing function. All patient treatments and data collection were conducted at the School of Dentistry of the Federal University of Goias, Brazil.…”

“…Subjects who did not meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria were referred for appropriate treatment in other clinical settings of the dental school. The study sample size was calculated within the context of the main study [13] and comprised 48 participants, 24 in each group.…”

Immediately loaded single-implant mandibular overdentures compared to conventional complete dentures: A cost-effectiveness analysis

“…The SIMO protocol was conceived as a minimally invasive procedure with reduced treatment burden, as well as a lower-priced implant treatment option [Hartmann et al, 2020], but with similar outcomes compared to the more commonly advocated 2implant overdenture as suggested previously [de Resende et al, 2021]. In addition, the selected implant and prosthetic items' types and brand were chosen to represent local low-price commercially available products.…”

A 3‐year prospective cohort on the incidence of prosthodontic complications associated with three implant treatment options for the edentulous mandible

“…The study groups comprised the two-implant overdenture and the four-implant fixed prosthesis and a relatively novel approach using a single implant for overdenture retention. The single-implant overdenture has been used as the minimal implant intervention for the edentulous mandible with growing evidence from clinical studies on its clinical safety and effectiveness, 11,12 and as an alternative to the standard overdenture treatment with two implants. 13 The study hypotheses are that the rates of visits fall within the limit of one visit per year for most patients and that there is no difference between treatment groups concerning the incidence rates of clinical visits due to prosthodontic complications.…”