Comparison Between Mainly Mucosa-Supported and Combined Mucosa–Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures

The purpose of this study is to compare mainly mucosa-supported and combined mucosa–implant-supported complete mandibular overdentures. Ten completely edentulous patients received 20 press-fit dental implants at the canine regions of the mandible. Each patient received 2 implants, which were left submerged and unloaded for 4 months. The patients were divided into 2 groups: group I patients received mandibular overdentures retained by a magnet attachment (mainly mucosa-supported overdenture). Group II patients received mandibular overdentures retained by a bar attachment (combined mucosa–implant-supported overdenture). The patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically immediately after overdenture delivery and after 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months. The results showed that the mainly mucosa-supported overdentures had less bone resorption distal to the implant in comparison to the combined mucosa–implant-supported overdentures. Plaque index score was significantly high in the group treated with magnet-retained overdentures. After 18 months follow up, the group treated with combined mucosa–implant-supported overdentures showed a significant increase in gingival inflammation when compared with the other group. The type of attachment or support may affect gingival inflammation or plaque accumulation. Increased functional load may affect bone density and resorption.

[1]  D. Wismeijer,et al.  Factors to consider in selecting an occlusal concept for patients with implants in the edentulous mandible. , 1995, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[2]  Kiyoshi Koyano,et al.  In vitro study of a mandibular implant overdenture retained with ball, magnet, or bar attachments: comparison of load transfer and denture stability. , 2003, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[3]  G. D. de Lange,et al.  Dutch consensus on guidelines for superstructures on endosseous implants in the edentulous mandible. , 1991, The Journal of oral implantology.

[4]  I. Ellis.  Atlas of Oral Implantology , 1993 .

[5]  D. R. Burns,et al.  Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures: Part II--Patient satisfaction and preference. , 1995, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[6]  F. Bosman,et al.  Location of implants in the interforaminal region of the mandible and the consequences for the design of the superstructure. , 1994, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[7]  D. van Steenberghe,et al.  A 5-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants in the mandibular overdenture therapy. Part I: Peri-implant outcome. , 1998, Clinical oral implants research.

[8]  H. Tsuru,et al.  Interface histology of unloaded and early loaded partially stabilized zirconia endosseous implant in initial bone healing. , 1993, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[9]  N. von Wowern,et al.  The mandibular bone mineral content in relation to vestibulolingual sulcoplasty. A 2-year follow-up. , 1991, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[10]  D. R. Burns,et al.  Mandibular implant overdenture treatment: consensus and controversy. , 2000, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[11]  A. Wenzel.  Effect of image enhancement for detectability of bone lesions in digitized intraoral radiographs. , 1988, Scandinavian journal of dental research.

[12]  R. Mericske-Stern.  Clinical evaluation of overdenture restorations supported by osseointegrated titanium implants: a retrospective study. , 1990, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[13]  S. J. Behrman,et al.  The implantation of magnets in the jaw to aid denture retention , 1960 .

[14]  I Herrmann,et al.  A multicenter study of overdentures supported by Brånemark implants. , 1993, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[15]  A. Grant,et al.  The use of magnetic forces in prosthetic dentistry. , 1981, Journal of dentistry.

[16]  H. Löe,et al.  PERIODONTAL DISEASE IN PREGNANCY. I. PREVALENCE AND SEVERITY. , 1963, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[17]  M. Cune,et al.  Delayed implants in the anterior maxilla with the IMZ-implant system. , 1995, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[18]  J. Kent,et al.  Use of the integral implant for overdenture stabilization. , 1990, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[19]  B. d'Hoedt,et al.  A 5-year longitudinal study of the clinical effectiveness of ITI solid-screw implants in the treatment of mandibular edentulism. , 2002, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[20]  R. Jiménez.  Implant Prosthodontics: Clinical and Laboratory Procedures , 1994 .

[21]  D van Steenberghe,et al.  Prosthetic aspects of osseointegrated fixtures supporting overdentures. A 4-year report. , 1991, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[22]  M. Quirynen,et al.  A comparative prospective study of splinted and unsplinted Brånemark implants in mandibular overdenture therapy: a preliminary report. , 1994, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[23]  J. P. Lund,et al.  Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: satisfaction and functional assessment. , 2003, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[24]  H. Reintsema,et al.  Overdentures supported by two IMZ implants in the lower jaw. A retrospective study of peri-implant tissues. , 1994, Clinical oral implants research.

[25]  N. Lang,et al.  Colonization of osseointegrated titanium implants in edentulous patients. Early results. , 1988, Oral microbiology and immunology.