Comparison Between Two Different Design Concepts of 4- Implant Assisted Mandibular Complete Overdenture:- periimplant bone height changes
Downloads
Abstract:
Purpose: This study was accomplished to evaluate the bone height changes radiographically and the reliability of use either two posterior short or inclined implants with two conventional anterior implants retaining mandibular overdenture.
Materials and methods: Ten male mandibular completely edentulous patients were divided in two equal groups after delivered complete dentures. For the first group (short implant design- group A) two vertical implants were inserted in the canine areas and two short vertical implants were inserted in the 1st molar area. For the second group (inclined implant design- group B) two vertical implants were inserted in the canine areas and two 30o distally inclined implants were inserted in the second premolar area. Digital standardized periapical radiographic assessment for horizontal and vertical alveolar bone height changes was carried out at T0 (immediately), T6 (6 months), T12 (12 months) and after mandibular complete overdenture insertion.
Result: 1. VBL decrease significantly with advance of time in both groups during the time intervals. The highest VBL around the implants was noted in the 1st six months followed by the 2nd six months, the highest amount of total VBL observed with the interval T0-T12, followed by the interval (T0-T6) and the inclined implant group showed significant higher total VBL than short implant group at the intervals T0-T6 and T0-12.
2- HBL decreased significantly with advance of time in both groups. For short and inclined implant group, the highest amount of total HBL observed with the interval T0-T12, followed by the interval (T0-T6). Short implant group showed significant higher total HBL than inclined group at the interval T0-T6 and T0-T12.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this clinical radiographic study it can be concluded that (1) The 30o distally inclined implants inserted in the posterior areas for assisting mandibular complete overdenture induce vertical bone loss more than the axially inserted implants (short or conventional implants). (2) The short implants inserted in the posterior areas for assisting mandibular complete overdenture induce horizontal bone loss more than the axially inserted implants.
Keywords: Short implants, O-ring ball attachment, VBL, HBL.
Downloads
Sultana N, Bartlett DW, Suleiman M. Retention of implant-supported overdentures at different implant angulations: comparing Locator and ball attachments. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2017;28(11):1406-10.
Patzelt SBM, Bahat O, Reynolds MA, Strub JR. The All-on-Four Treatment Concept: A Systematic Review. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research. 2013;16(6):836-55.
Pimentel MJ, Silva WJd, Del Bel Cury AA. Short implants to support mandibular complete dentures - photoelastic analysis. Brazilian Oral Research. 2017;31(2):1-10.
Van Assche N, Michels S, Quirynen M, Naert I. Extra short dental implants supporting an overdenture in the edentulous maxilla: a proof of concept. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2011;23(5):567-76.
Peixoto HE, Camati PR, Faot F, Sotto-Maior BS, Martinez EF, Peruzzo DC. Rehabilitation of the atrophic mandible with short implants in different positions: A finite elements study. Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2017;80(3):122-8.
De Kok IJ, Thalji G, Bryington M, Cooper LF. Radiographic Stents. Dental Clinics of North America. 2014;58(1):181-92.
Taddei C, Metz M, Waltman E, Etienne O. Direct procedure for connecting a mandibular implant-retained overdenture with ball attachments. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2004;92(4):403-4.
Abdel-Khalek EA. Fabrication of a Simple Acrylic Template to Standardize Periapical Radiographs for Implants Retaining Mandibular Bar Overdentures. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2017;28(2):e657-e60.
Emera RMK, Askar OM, Ahmed WS. Two Implants Retained Complete Mandibular Overdenture with Zirconia-PEEK Telescopic Attachment: Radiographic Evaluation of Peri-implant Bone Level Changes. Oral Health Dental Sci. 2020;4(1):1-7.
Vogel RC. CE 2-Implant Overdentures: A New Standard of Care for Edentulous Patients--Current Concepts and Techniques. Compendium. 2008;29(5):270-6.
Obeid G, Shafie H. S411: Basic Surgical and Prosthetic Aspects of Implant-Supported Overdentures. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2007;65(9):101-2.
Xu X, Hu B, Xu Y, Liu Q, Ding H, Xu L. Short versus standard implants for single-crown restorations in the posterior region: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2020;2(1):1-3.
Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson A. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int j oral maxillofac implants. 1986;1(1):11-25.
Chrcanovic BR, Albrektsson T, Wennerberg A. Tilted versus axially placed dental implants: A meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry. 2015;43(2):149-70.
Elsyad MA, Alokda MM, Gebreel AA, Hammouda NI, Habib AA. Effect of two designs of implant-supported overdentures on peri-implant and posterior mandibular bone resorptions: a 5-year prospective radiographic study. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2016;28(10):e184-e92.
Jazza N, Abdel-Khalik M, El-Gayyar M, Emera R. Stress applied on implant assisting mandibular complete overdenture - in vitro comparison of Casted Metal bar and InFibra Ribbon bar attachments. Mans Jour Os Dent. 2014;1(2):1-6.
Copyright (c) 2021 International Journal of Scientific Research and Management
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
