OBJECTIVES: To determine surgical and prosthodontic outcomes of mandibular single-implant overdentures, opposing complete maxillary dentures, using a wide diameter implant and large ball attachment system compared with different regular diameter implants with standard attachment systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Thirty-six edentulous participants (mean age 68 years, SD 9.2) were randomly assigned into three treatment groups (n=12). A single implant was placed in the mandibular midline of participants to support an overdenture using a 6-week loading protocol. The control group received Southern regular implants and standard ball attachments. One group received Southern 8-mm-wide implants and large ball attachments. Another group received Neoss regular implants and Locator attachments. Parametric and non-parametric tests of a statistical software package (SPSS) were used to determine between groups differences in marginal bone loss, implant stability, implant, and prosthodontic success (P<0.05). RESULTS:Implant success after 1 year was 75% for Southern regular implant (control) group; and 100% for the Southern wide and Neoss regular implant groups (P=0.038). Mean marginal bone loss at 1 year was 0.19 mm (SD 0.39) without significant differences observed. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) at baseline was significantly lower for the Southern regular (control) group than the other two groups (P=0.001; P=0.009). At 1 year, no significant difference in implant stability was observed (mean ISQ 74.6, SD 6.1). The change in implant stability from baseline to 1 year was significant for the control group (P=0.025). Prosthodontic success was comparable between the groups but the maintenance (41 events overall, mean 1.2) was greater for the Locator and the standard ball attachments. CONCLUSIONS:Mandibular single-implant overdentures are a successful treatment option for older edentulous adults with early loading protocol using implants of different diameters and with different attachment systems.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To determine surgical and prosthodontic outcomes of mandibular single-implant overdentures, opposing complete maxillary dentures, using a wide diameter implant and large ball attachment system compared with different regular diameter implants with standard attachment systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six edentulous participants (mean age 68 years, SD 9.2) were randomly assigned into three treatment groups (n=12). A single implant was placed in the mandibular midline of participants to support an overdenture using a 6-week loading protocol. The control group received Southern regular implants and standard ball attachments. One group received Southern 8-mm-wide implants and large ball attachments. Another group received Neoss regular implants and Locator attachments. Parametric and non-parametric tests of a statistical software package (SPSS) were used to determine between groups differences in marginal bone loss, implant stability, implant, and prosthodontic success (P<0.05). RESULTS: Implant success after 1 year was 75% for Southern regular implant (control) group; and 100% for the Southern wide and Neoss regular implant groups (P=0.038). Mean marginal bone loss at 1 year was 0.19 mm (SD 0.39) without significant differences observed. Implant stability quotient (ISQ) at baseline was significantly lower for the Southern regular (control) group than the other two groups (P=0.001; P=0.009). At 1 year, no significant difference in implant stability was observed (mean ISQ 74.6, SD 6.1). The change in implant stability from baseline to 1 year was significant for the control group (P=0.025). Prosthodontic success was comparable between the groups but the maintenance (41 events overall, mean 1.2) was greater for the Locator and the standard ball attachments. CONCLUSIONS: Mandibular single-implant overdentures are a successful treatment option for older edentulous adults with early loading protocol using implants of different diameters and with different attachment systems.
Authors: T Mundt; N Passia; W Att; G Heydecke; S Freitag-Wolf; R G Luthardt; S Kappel; I K Konstantinidis; M Stiesch; S Wolfart; M Kern Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 3.573