PURPOSE: Is to evaluate the antagonistic, maxillary ridge resorption for different prosthetic modalities mainly mucosa-supported mandibular complete overdentures, combined mucosa implant-supported mandibular complete overdenture, and lower conventional complete dentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen completely edentulous patients were divided into 3 groups; 5 patients each. Group I patients received maxillary conventional denture and mandibular overdentures retained by magnet attachment on 2 implants (mainly mucosa-supported overdenture). Group II patients received maxillary conventional denture and mandibular overdentures retained by bar attachment on 2 implants (combined mucosa implant-supported overdenture). Group III patients received upper and lower conventional complete denture. All patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically immediately after insertion and after 1 and 2 years. Panoramic radiographic film was used to evaluate the antagonistic maxillary ridge resorption. RESULTS: Indicated a more pronounced annual bone resorption of the antagonistic maxillary ridge after 2 years in patients with conventional complete denture wearers when compared with patients with combined mucosa implant-supported mandibular complete overdenture and mainly mucosa-supported mandibular complete overdenture groups. CONCLUSION: Using a combined mucosa implant-supported mandibular complete overdenture the amount of antagonistic maxillary alveolar bone resorption increases when compared with the mainly mucosa-supported complete overdenture.
PURPOSE: Is to evaluate the antagonistic, maxillary ridge resorption for different prosthetic modalities mainly mucosa-supported mandibular complete overdentures, combined mucosa implant-supported mandibular complete overdenture, and lower conventional complete dentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen completely edentulouspatients were divided into 3 groups; 5 patients each. Group I patients received maxillary conventional denture and mandibular overdentures retained by magnet attachment on 2 implants (mainly mucosa-supported overdenture). Group II patients received maxillary conventional denture and mandibular overdentures retained by bar attachment on 2 implants (combined mucosa implant-supported overdenture). Group III patients received upper and lower conventional complete denture. All patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically immediately after insertion and after 1 and 2 years. Panoramic radiographic film was used to evaluate the antagonistic maxillary ridge resorption. RESULTS: Indicated a more pronounced annual bone resorption of the antagonistic maxillary ridge after 2 years in patients with conventional complete denture wearers when compared with patients with combined mucosa implant-supported mandibular complete overdenture and mainly mucosa-supported mandibular complete overdenture groups. CONCLUSION: Using a combined mucosa implant-supported mandibular complete overdenture the amount of antagonistic maxillary alveolar bone resorption increases when compared with the mainly mucosa-supported complete overdenture.