AIM: Evaluation of some morphological oral aspects perceived as decision factors in complete edentulism treatment by mini-implants overdenture. PATIENTS, MATERIAL AND METHODS: An observational study was conducted on a sample of 24 patients (average age of 61 years), through clinical and imagistic methods. The variables taken into consideration were: age, gender, alveolar mucosa status, bone offer, mini-implants characteristics, insertion torque and loading type. RESULTS: 117 mini-implants were applied, 59% to the lower jaw and 41% to the upper jaw. On average, there were inserted 5.33 implants to maxilla and 4.6 to mandible. Fifty-seven percent of implants were applied in the interforaminal area. The implants used had 10 mm (28.2%) and 13 mm (71.8%). In only 41% patients, the ridge width was higher than 5 mm (value necessary for conventional implant application). Diameters of implant used were: 1.8 mm (2.56%), 2.1 mm (25.64%) and 2.4 mm (71.8%). Smaller diameters were used in mandible. Only in 16.67% of patients was possible the transmucosal insertion. Bone density was D2 and D3 for men, and D3 and D4 for women. Immediate loading was achieved in 20.5% patients. CONCLUSIONS: Mini-implant supported overdenture can be an alternative to conventional denture and conventional implant overdenture. Its advantages derives from implants' characteristics (smaller diameter, variable length, O-ring retention system), which adapts better to the particular edentulous conditions. Insertion technique implies less surgical trauma. Choosing implants' size, number, topography, and the loading method have a great variety, depending on anatomical feature (bone offer, mucosa and relationship with the nearby anatomical structures), functional features and patients' wishes.
AIM: Evaluation of some morphological oral aspects perceived as decision factors in complete edentulism treatment by mini-implants overdenture. PATIENTS, MATERIAL AND METHODS: An observational study was conducted on a sample of 24 patients (average age of 61 years), through clinical and imagistic methods. The variables taken into consideration were: age, gender, alveolar mucosa status, bone offer, mini-implants characteristics, insertion torque and loading type. RESULTS: 117 mini-implants were applied, 59% to the lower jaw and 41% to the upper jaw. On average, there were inserted 5.33 implants to maxilla and 4.6 to mandible. Fifty-seven percent of implants were applied in the interforaminal area. The implants used had 10 mm (28.2%) and 13 mm (71.8%). In only 41% patients, the ridge width was higher than 5 mm (value necessary for conventional implant application). Diameters of implant used were: 1.8 mm (2.56%), 2.1 mm (25.64%) and 2.4 mm (71.8%). Smaller diameters were used in mandible. Only in 16.67% of patients was possible the transmucosal insertion. Bone density was D2 and D3 for men, and D3 and D4 for women. Immediate loading was achieved in 20.5% patients. CONCLUSIONS: Mini-implant supported overdenture can be an alternative to conventional denture and conventional implant overdenture. Its advantages derives from implants' characteristics (smaller diameter, variable length, O-ring retention system), which adapts better to the particular edentulous conditions. Insertion technique implies less surgical trauma. Choosing implants' size, number, topography, and the loading method have a great variety, depending on anatomical feature (bone offer, mucosa and relationship with the nearby anatomical structures), functional features and patients' wishes.