Long-term survival rate of implant-supported overdentures with various attachment systems: A 20-year retrospective study

Tooth-Supported Overdentures Revisited

The goal of prosthodontics is to provide a functional prosthesis to restore aesthetics, functions, and masticatory efficiencies. Tooth-supported overdentures are one of the treatment options for removable dentures. This article aims to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of tooth-supported overdentures and the principles of using various overdenture attachments, including non-attachment overdentures. The common treatment options in preparing the overdenture abutment are either with or without abutment coping with or without attachment systems, which were discussed and illustrated. A range of tooth-supported overdenture systems were addressed, from low to high financial implications and treatment complexities. The clinician can choose a system that best fits the patient's condition and expectations. This allows clinicians to decide and consider tooth-supported overdentures as a treatment option before full edentulism. A well-executed tooth-supported overdenture ensures the preservation of alveolar bone, optimizes patient satisfaction in denture treatment, and eventually improves the patient's adaptation when transitioning to complete dentures.

Dentists' Preference toward Fixed Versus Removable Implant Prosthesis on Edentulous Jaws to Improve Quality of Life

Implants that can be used in the prosthetic rehabilitation of full and partial edentulous patients are now frequently used due to advances in dentistry. The aim of the study is to find the prevalence of implant supported fixed vs. removable prosthesis and associated quality of life evaluation. A cross-sectional, descriptive study was conducted in an institution, on randomly selected individuals. The study group consisted of adult patients who attended the outpatient Department of Prosthodontics from June 2019-March 2020. Eighty-six thousand (86,000) case sheets were evaluated and Chi-square test, independent t-test and frequency analysis were used to explore the relationship between two variables. Out of the patients, 76.5% preferred fixed prosthesis while 23.5% chose removable prosthesis. Females preferred fixed prosthesis over removable. The young-old age group had more removable prosthesis compared to the middle- and elderly age group. Patients with implant supported fixed dental prosthesis had a better quality of life compared with patients with implant supported overdentures. Esthetic and functional rehabilitation is a preferred option females generally care more about their teeth and looks so wanted more fixed options. The young-old age group preferred removable prosthesis over fixed prosthesis. Patients with implant supported fixed dental prosthesis have a better quality of life compared with patients with implant supported overdentures.

Marginal Bone Loss around Implant-Retaining Overdentures versus Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses 12-Month Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study

Few studies have compared marginal bone loss (MBL) around implant-retaining overdentures (IODs) vs. implant-supported fixed prostheses (FPs). This study evaluated the mean MBL and radiographic bone-implant interface contact (r-BIIC) around IODs and implant-supported FPs. We also investigated osseointegration and MBL around non-submerged dental implants. We measured the changes between the MBL in the mesial and distal sites immediately after prosthetic delivery and after one year. The mean MBL and its changes in the IOD group were significantly higher. The mean percentage of r-BIIC was significantly higher in the FP group. MBL and its changes in males were significantly higher in the IOD group. The percentage of r-BIIC was significantly higher in the FP group. MBL in the lower site in the IOD group was significantly higher. Regarding MBL, the location of the implant was the only significant factor in the IOD group, while gender was the only significant predictor in the FP group. Regarding the r-BIIC percentage, gender was a significant factor in the FP group. We concluded that non-submerged dental implants restored with FPs and IODs maintained stable bone remodeling one year after prosthetic delivery.

Long-term effects of sinus membrane perforation on dental implants placed with transcrestal sinus floor elevation: A case-control study

BACKGROUND

There is a little comparative data on implants placed transcrestally with/without sinus membrane (SM) perforation.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of implants with maxillary sinus perforation and those without SM perforation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Among 560 transcrestally placed implants in 324 patients, the patients who underwent cone-beam computed tomographic radiography (CBCT) were included. The following groups were established: implants with SM perforation (group P) and implants without SM perforation based on postoperative panoramic radiographs and patient records (group NP). Group NP was further divided into subgroups based on CBCT taken at the last patient visit: group NP1 consisting of implants with no protrusion or <1 mm of protrusion and group NP2 consisting of implants with ≥1 mm of protrusion. Mixed linear regression was performed for the factors affecting SM thickening and marginal bone loss. Mixed survival analysis was also performed.

RESULTS

A total of 379 implants in 221 patients were eligible. The mean follow-up period was 112.03 ± 54.2 months. Twenty-six implants failed (2 and 24 implants in groups P and NP, respectively), mainly due to peri-implant bone loss. No statistically significant difference was noted between the groups in SM thickness (2.4 ± 2.8 mm, 2.1 ± 3.4 mm, and 2.5 ± 3.5 mm in groups P, NP1, and NP2, respectively, p > 0.05). Marginal bone loss in group NP1 was significantly greater than that in the other groups. In the mixed model, SM perforation was not a determinant of sinus membrane thickening and implant survival in the mixed models and the survival analysis, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

SM perforation in transcrestal sinus augmentation did not affect implant survival and SM thickening.

Clinical Performance of Implant Crown Retained Removable Partial Dentures for Mandibular Edentulism-A Retrospective Study

The studies on implant-crown-retained removable partial dentures (IC-RPDs) for edentulism are scarce. The purpose of this study was to evaluate survival rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) of IC-RPDs compared to implant overdentures (IODs) in mandibular edentulism. Variables that influenced survival and marginal bone loss (MBL) of implants in both treatment modalities were analyzed and the functional/esthetic satisfaction of patients as well as prosthetic complications were also observed. Eighteen IC-RPDs with a total of 60 implant-supported survey crowns and 24 IODs with a total 94 implants retained with magnet attachments were observed. After a median observation period of 46.6 months (up to 149 months), we observed 98.3% implant survival rates for IC-RPDs and 92.5% for IODs. Kaplan–Meier survival curves based on the treatment modality showed that, at 96 months, cumulative survival rates were 98.3% in IC-RPD and 83.1% in IOD. For implant survival rates, no statistical differences were observed according to age, sex, opposing dentition, or implant positions (p = 0.515, 0.666, 0.201, 0.749, respectively). The implant MBL measurements for IC-RPD and IOD groups at the final recall check were 0.93 ± 1.22 mm and 2.12 ± 2.09 mm, respectively. Additionally, there were no significant differences between groups (p = 0.554). The implants with peri-implantitis at year 1 showed significantly higher MBL at final check-up (p < 0.001). The MBL of implants showed significant differences based on age (p = 0.008) and opposing dentition (p = 0.003). No significant differences of implant MBL were observed for the position of placed implants (p = 0.621) or sex (p = 0.666). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on functional and esthetic satisfaction were significantly improved after IC-RPD or IOD treatment (p < 0.001). The most frequent prosthetic complication of IC-RPD was clasp loosening, while for IOD group, it was attachment dislodgement. Within the limitations of this retrospective study, we concluded that IC-RPDs could be considered as a viable treatment option for edentulous patients who need few fixed abutments for satisfaction.

New Rehabilitation Concept for Maxillary Edentulism: A Clinical Retrospective Study of Implant Crown Retained Removable Partial Dentures

There have been no studies of implant-crown-retained removable partial dentures (IC-RPD) for the treatment of maxillary edentulism. The purpose of this study was to perform clinical and radiographic evaluations of implants in IC-RPD compared to implant overdentures (IOD) in maxillary edentulous patients. Twenty IC-RPDs with 74 splinted implant crowns and 18 IODs with 71 implants retained with magnet attachments were observed in 38 patients. We statistically analyzed survival rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) of implants based on multiple variables including first year pathologic condition, location of placed implant, age, and sex in both treatments. Patient reported oral measurements (PROMs) regarding functional/esthetic improvement after IC-RPD or IOD treatments and prosthetic complications were also statistically analyzed. After a median observation period of 47.1 months (up to 147 months), we observed 97.3% implant survival rates for IC-RPD and 70.4% for IOD (p < 0.001). Among variables, first year pathologic condition (p < 0.001) and sex (p = 0.027) influenced implant survival rates. The MBL of implants for IC-RPD and IOD groups at the final check-up were 1.12 ± 1.19 mm and 3.31 ± 1.71 mm, respectively (p < 0.001). In both groups, patients with peri-implantitis (p < 0.001) and patients older than 65 years (p = 0.029) showed significantly higher implant MBL regardless of treatment modality. Functional and esthetic satisfaction were significantly improved (p < 0.001) after both treatments. The IOD group showed more frequent prosthetic complications compared to the IC-RPD group. Within the limitations of a retrospective study, we concluded that RPD with few splinted implant crowns is a feasible alternative treatment modality for maxillary edentulous patients with anatomical limitations.

Initial management and long-term follow up after the rehabilitation of a patient with severe dentoalveolar trauma: A case report

Dental trauma is common and for patients who suffer significant oral injuries, rehabilitation can be challenging to the clinical team. This case report describes the successful prosthetic replacement of multiple missing teeth lost due to severe dentoalveolar trauma, using iliac crest bone grafting, an implant-retained removable dental prosthesis and implant-supported crowns. Good functionality and aesthetic outcome were achieved.

The number of implants required to support a maxillary overdenture: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The number of implants needed to support a maxillary overdenture is still a controversial issue. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the number of implants required to support a maxillary overdenture in order to obtain optimal treatment outcomes in terms of implant survival, overdenture longevity and patient satisfaction.

STUDY SELECTION

Pubmed and EMBASE databes were systematically searched and complemented by hand searching from 2000 to 2017. The Prisma statement and a PICOS approach were adopted. All selected articles provided at least two-year follow-up and 10 totally edentulous patients. Survival rate of implants and overdentures were statistically analyzed according to number of implants and according to splitting technique, employing non-parametric Fisher Test for unpaired data. For the pooled analysis of implant failures, the odds ratio between group of 4 splinted implants and group of more than 4 splinted was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 28 articles were included. Data analysis of the included studies showed that the survival rate of implants appeared higher in ≥ 4 implants group, whereas the high survival rate of overdentures and patient satisfaction were not significantly influenced by the number of implants.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of our analysis indicate that overall the most frequent tendency is to place at least four implants, splinted or unsplinted, in order to ensure a higher survival rate of implants. However, the relationship between overdenture survival, the patient's quality of life, and the number of implants required to support a maxillary overdenture has yet to be clarified.