Ignace Naert1, Ghada Alsaadi, Daniel van Steenberghe, Marc Quirynen. 1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry/BIOMAT Research Group, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Ignace.Naert@med.kuleuven.ac.be
Abstract
PURPOSE: This randomized controlled clinical trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of splinted implants versus unsplinted implants in overdenture therapy over a 10-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample comprised 36 completely edentulous patients, 17 men and 19 women (mean age 63.7 years). In each patient, 2 implants (Brånemark System, Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) were placed in the interforaminal area. Three to 5 months after placement, they were connected to standard abutments. The patients were then rehabilitated with ball-retained overdentures, magnet-retained overdentures, or bar-retained overdentures (the control group). Patients were followed for 4, 12, 60, and 120 months post-abutment connection. Group means as well as linear regression models were fitted with attachment type and time as classification variables and corrected for simultaneous testing (Tukey). RESULTS: After 10 years, 9 patients had died and 1 was severely ill. Over 10 years, no implants failed. Mean Plaque Index, Bleeding Index, change in attachment level, Periotest values, and marginal bone level at the end of the follow-up period were not significantly different among the groups. DISCUSSION: The annual marginal bone loss, excluding the first months of remodeling, was comparable with that found around healthy natural teeth. CONCLUSION: The fact that no implants failed and that overall marginal bone loss after the first year of bone remodeling was limited suggested that implants in a 2-implant mandibular overdenture concept have an excellent prognosis in this patient population, irrespective of the attachment system used.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This randomized controlled clinical trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of splinted implants versus unsplinted implants in overdenture therapy over a 10-year period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample comprised 36 completely edentulouspatients, 17 men and 19 women (mean age 63.7 years). In each patient, 2 implants (Brånemark System, Nobel Biocare, Göteborg, Sweden) were placed in the interforaminal area. Three to 5 months after placement, they were connected to standard abutments. The patients were then rehabilitated with ball-retained overdentures, magnet-retained overdentures, or bar-retained overdentures (the control group). Patients were followed for 4, 12, 60, and 120 months post-abutment connection. Group means as well as linear regression models were fitted with attachment type and time as classification variables and corrected for simultaneous testing (Tukey). RESULTS: After 10 years, 9 patients had died and 1 was severely ill. Over 10 years, no implants failed. Mean Plaque Index, Bleeding Index, change in attachment level, Periotest values, and marginal bone level at the end of the follow-up period were not significantly different among the groups. DISCUSSION: The annual marginal bone loss, excluding the first months of remodeling, was comparable with that found around healthy natural teeth. CONCLUSION: The fact that no implants failed and that overall marginal bone loss after the first year of bone remodeling was limited suggested that implants in a 2-implant mandibular overdenture concept have an excellent prognosis in this patient population, irrespective of the attachment system used.