The transmandibular implant: A 12-year follow-up study

Bosker, Hans; Dijk, Lucas van

doi:10.1016/0278-2391(89)90275-9

Cited by 45 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Comparison with the study of Maxson et al . (1989) (retrospective, evaluation period 3 months to 5 years) learns that this study has 95·8% survival rate, the study of Bosker and Van Dijk (1989) (retrospective, evaluation period 6 months to 12 years) reveals a 97·8% survival rate and the study of Bosker et al . (1991) (retrospective, evaluation period 6 months to 13 years) states a survival rate of 96·8%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures

Visser¹,

Geertman²,

Meijer³

et al. 2002

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this multicentre randomized clinical trial was to analyse surgical and prosthetic aftercare and clinical implant performance of edentulous patients with implant-retained mandibular overdentures and of patients with conventional dentures, either or not after pre-prosthetic vestibuloplasty and deepening of the floor of the mouth. The evaluation period was 5 years. The implant systems evaluated were the IMZ implant system, the Brånemark implant system and the Transmandibular Implant system. The centre in Groningen had five groups (n=149) and the centre in Nijmegen had three groups (n=86). The evaluation comprised of surgical and prosthetic aftercare, together with clinical implant performance (CIP). The highest implant loss (29%) is found in the Transmandibular Implant group. All groups had prosthetic revisions and complications according to the CIP-scale. The majority of the patients in the endosseous implant groups were subject to minor complications. The CIP-score of the Transmandibular Implant group is significantly higher than the scores of the other groups, because of the high number of lost posts. In 26;1% of the patients in this group score 4 is given, which means failure of the implant system. From this study it can be concluded that the endosseous implant systems used in this study have less surgical aftercare and a better clinical implant performance than the Transmandibular Implant system and are therefore the systems of choice for the edentulous mandible.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures

Visser¹,

Geertman²,

Meijer³

et al. 2002

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(1) augmentation of the atrophied mandible with autologous bone to restore the height of the mandible prior to implant insertion, and (2) a nonaugmentation technique with the application of shorter implants . In the past, transmandibular implants were also used for such cases . Nowadays, transmandibular implant systems are not used anymore because of the high frequency of severe complications .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14,15 In the past, transmandibular implants were also used for such cases. 16,17 Nowadays, transmandibular implant systems are not used anymore because of the high frequency of severe complications. 18 As a result of these complications, most transmandibular implant systems are lost with time and are meanwhile replaced by endosseous implant-retained overdentures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A 15‐Year Comparative Prospective Study of Surgical and Prosthetic Care and Aftercare of Overdenture Treatment in the Atrophied Mandible: Augmentation Versus Nonaugmentation

Visser

Stellingsma

Raghoebar

et al. 2015

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Early evidence showed mucosal enlargements to be most commonly related to implants penetrating non‐keratinized mucosa in mandibular implant overdentures (Small 1978; Helfrick et al 1982; Kent et al 1984; Parel 1986; Small & Misiek 1986; Bosker 1986; Engquist et al 1988; Bosker & van Dijk 1989; Bosker et al 1991). With advanced mandibular residual ridge resorption, abutments are placed more supragingival, and hence larger dead spaces are created underneath mandibular overdentures.…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Inter‐abutment and peri‐abutment mucosal enlargement with mandibular implant overdentures

Payne

Solomons

Tawse‐Smith

et al. 2001

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A variety of terms have been used to describe changes in the oral mucosa around abutments underneath fixed and removable implant prostheses such as mucosal inflammation, peri-implant mucosal hyperplasia, gingival hyperplasia, hyperplastic tissue, mucosal proliferation, proliferative gingivitis and peri-implant mucositis. Although such terms have become part of the evidence-based literature, there is no histological evidence to support the descriptive terminology used by authors. The use of the alternative term mucosal enlargement for clinical observations underneath mandibular implant overdentures is proposed. Prospective and retrospective reports have failed to use similar criteria to measure periodontal parameters in relation to these mucosal changes, both in keratinized or non-keratinized tissues. Therapeutic remedies for mucosal enlargement are dictated by authors' opinions on the possible aetiology. This literature review, coupled with clinical observations during a 5-year prospective study, prompts this proposal of the term mucosal enlargement underneath splinted and unsplinted mandibular implant overdentures.

show abstract

The transmandibular implant: A 12-year follow-up study

Cited by 45 publications

References 9 publications

Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures

Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures

A 15‐Year Comparative Prospective Study of Surgical and Prosthetic Care and Aftercare of Overdenture Treatment in the Atrophied Mandible: Augmentation Versus Nonaugmentation

Inter‐abutment and peri‐abutment mucosal enlargement with mandibular implant overdentures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About