OBJECTIVE: The aim of this 5-year prospective comparative study was to evaluate treatment outcome (survival rate, condition of hard and soft peri-implant tissues, patient satisfaction, prosthetic and surgical aftercare) of mandibular overdentures supported by two or four implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Sixty edentulous patients with a mandibular height between 12 and 18 mm participated. Thirty patients were treated with an overdenture supported by two IMZ implants (group A) and 30 patients were treated with anoverdenture supported by four IMZ implants (group B). Standardised clinical and radiographic parameters were evaluated 6 weeks after completion of the prosthetic treatment and after 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years of functional loading. Prosthetic and surgical aftercare was scored during the evaluation period. RESULTS: One implant was lost (group A) during the healing period. There were no significant differences with regard to any of the studied clinical or radiographic parameters of the peri-implant tissues between the groups. None of the patients reported sensory disturbances in the lip or chin region. No differences in satisfaction were observed between the groups. With regard to aftercare, there was a tendency of a greater need of prosthetic interventions in group A, while correction of soft-tissue problems was restricted to patients of group B. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in clinical and radiographical state of patients treated with an overdenture on two or four implants during a 5-year evaluation period. Patients of both groups were as satisfied with their overdentures.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this 5-year prospective comparative study was to evaluate treatment outcome (survival rate, condition of hard and soft peri-implant tissues, patient satisfaction, prosthetic and surgical aftercare) of mandibular overdentures supported by two or four implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty edentulouspatients with a mandibular height between 12 and 18 mm participated. Thirty patients were treated with an overdenture supported by two IMZ implants (group A) and 30 patients were treated with an overdenture supported by four IMZ implants (group B). Standardised clinical and radiographic parameters were evaluated 6 weeks after completion of the prosthetic treatment and after 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years of functional loading. Prosthetic and surgical aftercare was scored during the evaluation period. RESULTS: One implant was lost (group A) during the healing period. There were no significant differences with regard to any of the studied clinical or radiographic parameters of the peri-implant tissues between the groups. None of the patients reported sensory disturbances in the lip or chin region. No differences in satisfaction were observed between the groups. With regard to aftercare, there was a tendency of a greater need of prosthetic interventions in group A, while correction of soft-tissue problems was restricted to patients of group B. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in clinical and radiographical state of patients treated with an overdenture on two or four implants during a 5-year evaluation period. Patients of both groups were as satisfied with their overdentures.