PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the sagittal inclination of interforaminal implants, the clinical implant outcome, and the necessary extent of prosthodontic compensation modalities for implant overdentures (IODs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lateral cephalometric radiographs of 62 patients, each with a mandibular IOD retained by 2 to 4 implants, were analyzed. The sagittal inclination of the longitudinal implant axis of the most anterior implant was analyzed relative to the mandibular and occlusal planes. The angle needed to compensate for the inclination of the mandibular implant to obtain Angle's class I for the prosthesis (the compensation angle) was measured and compared with respect to skeletal class. Peri-implant structures were measured using the Plaque Index and the Gingival Index. The compensation angle was correlated with the mandibular implant inclination, the degree of mandibular atrophy, and the anterior facial height. RESULTS: The most anterior mandibular implants showed a mean retroinclination of 74.3 +/- 9.3 degrees in relation to the mandibular plane; retroinclination was significantly more pronounced in skeletal class II than skeletal classes I and III (P < .05). The compensation angle (26.9 +/- 10.5 degrees) was more significant for skeletal class II than for skeletal classes I and III (P < .01). Sagittal mandibular implant inclination correlated significantly to the compensation angle (r = -0.46; P < .05), mandibular atrophy (r = 0.32; P < .05) and mandibular facial height (r = -0.45; P < .05). Implant survival rate and peri-implant parameters (bone loss, pocket-depth, Plaque and Gingival Indices) of the interforaminal implants were not shown to be influenced by implant retroinclination. Nine patients (2 skeletal class 1, 7 skeletal class II) reported phonetic problems with the IOD because of narrowing of the lingual space but described significant improvement after a median 4.7 months (range, 3 to 12 months). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Depending on skeletal class, prosthetic compensatory mechanisms will be operative in the presence of mandibular implant retroinclination for IOD. Knowledge of mandibular inclinations and the compensatory mechanisms may be an essential factor in successful prosthetic rehabilitation and may provide for a homogenous design of the bar construction and easier handling and may also reduce stress on the attachment mechanism.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the sagittal inclination of interforaminal implants, the clinical implant outcome, and the necessary extent of prosthodontic compensation modalities for implant overdentures (IODs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lateral cephalometric radiographs of 62 patients, each with a mandibular IOD retained by 2 to 4 implants, were analyzed. The sagittal inclination of the longitudinal implant axis of the most anterior implant was analyzed relative to the mandibular and occlusal planes. The angle needed to compensate for the inclination of the mandibular implant to obtain Angle's class I for the prosthesis (the compensation angle) was measured and compared with respect to skeletal class. Peri-implant structures were measured using the Plaque Index and the Gingival Index. The compensation angle was correlated with the mandibular implant inclination, the degree of mandibular atrophy, and the anterior facial height. RESULTS: The most anterior mandibular implants showed a mean retroinclination of 74.3 +/- 9.3 degrees in relation to the mandibular plane; retroinclination was significantly more pronounced in skeletal class II than skeletal classes I and III (P < .05). The compensation angle (26.9 +/- 10.5 degrees) was more significant for skeletal class II than for skeletal classes I and III (P < .01). Sagittal mandibular implant inclination correlated significantly to the compensation angle (r = -0.46; P < .05), mandibular atrophy (r = 0.32; P < .05) and mandibular facial height (r = -0.45; P < .05). Implant survival rate and peri-implant parameters (bone loss, pocket-depth, Plaque and Gingival Indices) of the interforaminal implants were not shown to be influenced by implant retroinclination. Nine patients (2 skeletal class 1, 7 skeletal class II) reported phonetic problems with the IOD because of narrowing of the lingual space but described significant improvement after a median 4.7 months (range, 3 to 12 months). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Depending on skeletal class, prosthetic compensatory mechanisms will be operative in the presence of mandibular implant retroinclination for IOD. Knowledge of mandibular inclinations and the compensatory mechanisms may be an essential factor in successful prosthetic rehabilitation and may provide for a homogenous design of the bar construction and easier handling and may also reduce stress on the attachment mechanism.