Effectiveness of Ball Attachment Systems in Implant Retained- and Supported-Overdentures: A Three- to Five-Year Retrospective Examination
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Outcome Measures
4. Statistical Analysis
5. Results
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Anas El-Wegoud, M.; Fayyad, A.; Kaddah, A.; Nabhan, A. Bar versus ball attachments for implant-supported overdentures in complete edentulism: A systematic review. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2018, 20, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Petersen, P.; Yamamoto, T. Improving the oral health of older people: The approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol. 2005, 33, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Felton, D. Edentulism and comorbid factors. J. Prosthodont. 2009, 18, 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Emami, E.; de Souza, R.F.; Kabawat, M.; Feine, J.S. The impact of edentulism on oral and general health. Int. J. Dent. 2013, 2013, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cune, M.; Burgers, M.; Kampen, F.; Putter, C.; Bilt, A. Mandibular overdentures retained by two implants: 10-year results from a crossover clinical trial comparing ball-socket and bar-clip attachments. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2010, 23, 310–317. [Google Scholar]
- Naert, I.; Alsaadi, G.; Steenberghe, D.; Quirynen, M. A 10-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining mandibular overdentures: Peri-implant outcome. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants 2004, 19, 695–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gargari, M.; Prete, V.; Pujia, A.; Ceruso, F.M. Full-arch maxillary rehabilitation fixed on 6 implants. Oral Implantol. 2013, 6, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Payne, A.G.; Alsabeeha, N.H.; Atieh, M.A.; Esposito, M.; Ma, S.; Anas El-Wegoud, M. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Attachment systems for implant overdentures in edentulous jaws. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preiskel, H. Overdentures Made Easy: A Guide to Implant and Root Supported Prostheses, 1st ed.; Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc.: Chicago, IL, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Alsabeeha, N.H.; Payne, A.G.; Swain, M.V. Attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: A review of in vitro investigations on retention and wear features. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2009, 22, 429–440. [Google Scholar]
- Cawood, J.I.; Howell, R.A. A classification of the edentulous jaws. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 1988, 17, 232–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tallarico, M.; Xhanari, E.; Kadiu, B.; Scrascia, R. Implant rehabilitation of extremely atrophic mandibles (Cawood and Howell Class VI) with a fixed-removable solution supported by four implants: One-year results from a preliminary prospective case series study. J. Oral Sci. Rehabilit. 2017, 3, 32–40. [Google Scholar]
- Pozzi, A.; Tallarico, M.; Moy, P.K. Four-implant overdenture fully supported by a CAD-CAM titanium bar: A single-cohort prospective 1-year preliminary study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2016, 116, 516–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Meijer, H.J.; Kuiper, J.H.; Starmans, F.J.; Bosman, F. Stress distribution around dental implants: Influence of superstructure, length of implants, and height of mandible. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1992, 68, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadowsky, S.J. Mandibular implant-retained overdentures: A literature review J. Prosthet. Dent. 2001, 86, 468–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naert, I.; Quirynen, M.; Hooghe, M.; van Steenberghe, D.A. comparative prospective study of splinted and unsplinted Brånemark implants in mandibular overdenture therapy: A preliminary report. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1994, 71, 486–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Attard, N.J.; Zarb, G.A. Long-term treatment outcomes in edentulous patients with implant overdentures: The Toronto study. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2004, 17, 425–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Klemetti, E.; Chehade, A.; Takanashi, Y.; Feine, J.S. Two-implant mandibular overdentures: Simple to fabricate and easy to wear. J. Can. Dent. Assoc. 2003, 69, 29–33. [Google Scholar]
- Babbush, C.A.; Tallarico, M. Twelve-year clinical and radiological results of maxillary and mandibular implant-retained bar overdentures carried out on oxidized (TiUnite) replace select implants: A clinical case. J. Oral Implantol. 2013, 39, 737–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meijer, H.J.A.; Raghoebar, G.M.; de Waal, Y.C.M.; Vissink, A. Incidence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis in edentulous patients with an implant-retained mandibular overdenture during a 10-year follow-up period. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2014, 41, 1178–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cehreli, M.C.; Karasoy, D.; Kokat, A.M.; Akca, K.; Eckert, S. A systematic review of marginal bone loss around implants retaining or supporting overdentures. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2010, 25, 266–277. [Google Scholar]
- Elsyad, M.A.; Maryod, W.H.; Mostafa, A.Z. Effect of Implant Position on Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Locator-Retained Mandibular Overdentures: A 1-Year Prospective Study. J. Prosthodont. 2019, 28, e699–e704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elsyad, M.A. Patient satisfaction and prosthetic aspects with mini-implants retained mandibular overdentures. A 5-year prospective study. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2016, 27, 926–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Scrascia, R.; Venezia, P. Healthcare meets Aesthetics: New approaches to the complex oral rehabilitations with implant-supported dental prostheses. AMJ 2017, 10, 537–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slot, W.; Raghoebar, G.M.; Vissink, A.; Meijer, H.J. Maxillary overdentures supported by anteriorly or posteriorly placed implants opposed by a natural dentition in the mandible: A 1-year prospective case series study. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2014, 16, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Feine, J.S.; Carlsson, G.E.; Awad, M.A.; Chehade, A.; Duncan, W.J.; Gizani, S.; Head, T.; Lund, J.P.; MacEntee, M.; Mericske-Stern, R.; et al. The McGill Consensus Statement on Overdentures. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2002, 15, 413–414. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Awad, M.A.; Lund, J.P.; Dufresne, E.; Feine, J.S. Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: Satisfaction and functional assessment. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2003, 16, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Andreiotelli, M.; Att, W.; Strub, J.R. Prosthodontic complications with implant overdentures: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2010, 23, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Tallarico, M.; Ortensi, L.; Martinolli, M.; Casucci, A.; Ferrari, E.; Malaguti, G.; Montanari, M.; Scrascia, R.; Vaccaro, G.; Venezia, P.; et al. Multicenter Retrospective Analysis of Implant Overdentures Delivered with Different Design and Attachment Systems: Results Between One and 17 Years of Follow-Up. Dent. J. 2018, 6, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Total (n = 46) | Unsplinted (n = 25) | Splinted (n = 21) | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 69.2 ± 8.1 | 72.8 ± 7.4 | 64.8 ± 7.6 | 0.0008 * |
Male | 16 (34.8%) | 8 (32.0%) | 8 (38.1%) | 0.7604 |
Mandible | 27 (58.7%) | 18 (72.0%) | 9 (42.9%) | 0.0716 |
Smokers | 7 (15.2%) | 3 (12.0%) | 4 (19.0%) | 0.6857 |
Mean follow-up (range) in months | 128.1 ± 51.9 (36 to 206) | 129.2 ± 57.4 (36 to 194) | 126.7 ± 45.7 (36 to 206) | 0.8689 |
Mean number of implants | 2.7 (1 to 5) | 2.1 (1 to 5) | 3.4 (2 to 4) | 0.0000 * |
Failed implants | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1.0 |
Failed prosthesis | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1.0 |
Complications | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0.3180 |
Before * | 1 Year * | 3 Years * | 5 Years § | |
---|---|---|---|---|
HOIP | 74.04 ± 11.65 | 32.26 ± 9.21 | 32.81 ± 7.34 | 33.0 ± 7.36 |
Marginal bone loss | 0.22 ± 0.30 | 0.38 ± 0.40 | 0.46 ± 0.40 | |
Bleeding on probing | 0.05 ± 0.10 | 0.07 ± 0.16 | 0.09 ± 0.18 | |
Plaque index | 0.09 ± 0.15 | 0.06 ± 0.12 | 0.07 ± 0.14 |
Group | Before * | 1 Year * | 3 Years * | 5 Years § |
---|---|---|---|---|
Unsplinted | 75.0 ± 12.8 | 32.2 ± 8.6 | 31.6 ± 6.6 | 31.4 ± 5.9 |
Splinted | 72.9 ± 10.3 | 34.5 ± 10.0 | 34.4 ± 8.1 | 34.7 ± 8.5 |
p-Value | 0.5419 | 0.4069 | 0.2467 | 0.1892 |
Group | 1 Year * | 3 Years * | 5 Years § |
---|---|---|---|
Unsplinted | 0.20 ± 0.24 | 0.35 ± 0.37 | 0.41 ± 0.32 |
Splinted | 0.24 ± 0.36 | 0.41 ± 0.45 | 0.51 ± 0.48 |
p-Value | 0.6468 | 0.9931 | 0.4729 |
Group | 1 Year * | 3 Years * | 5 Years § |
---|---|---|---|
Unsplinted | 0.04 ± 0.11 | 0.07 ± 0.13 | 0.05 ± 0.13 |
Splinted | 0.06 ± 0.09 | 0.08 ± 0.19 | 0.08 ± 0.14 |
p-Value | 0.5115 | 0.7286 | 0.4162 |
Group | 1 Year * | 3 Years * | 5 Years § |
---|---|---|---|
Unsplinted | 0.09 ± 0.15 | 0.07 ± 0.17 | 0.06 ± 0.16 |
Splinted | 0.10 ± 0.06 | 0.10 ± 0.16 | 0.11 ± 0.19 |
p-Value | 0.7923 | 0.8350 | 0.4492 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ortensi, L.; Martinolli, M.; Borromeo, C.; Ceruso, F.M.; Gargari, M.; Xhanari, E.; Tallarico, M. Effectiveness of Ball Attachment Systems in Implant Retained- and Supported-Overdentures: A Three- to Five-Year Retrospective Examination. Dent. J. 2019, 7, 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj7030084
Ortensi L, Martinolli M, Borromeo C, Ceruso FM, Gargari M, Xhanari E, Tallarico M. Effectiveness of Ball Attachment Systems in Implant Retained- and Supported-Overdentures: A Three- to Five-Year Retrospective Examination. Dentistry Journal. 2019; 7(3):84. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj7030084
Chicago/Turabian StyleOrtensi, Luca, Matteo Martinolli, Carlo Borromeo, Francesco Mattia Ceruso, Marco Gargari, Erta Xhanari, and Marco Tallarico. 2019. "Effectiveness of Ball Attachment Systems in Implant Retained- and Supported-Overdentures: A Three- to Five-Year Retrospective Examination" Dentistry Journal 7, no. 3: 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj7030084