Ritva Kuoppala1, Ritva Näpänkangas, Aune Raustia. 1. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Stomatognathic Physiology, Institute of Dentistry, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland. ritva.kuoppala@oulu.fi
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this follow-up study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of implant-supported or implant-retained mandibular overdenture treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Altogether 112 patients treated with implant-supported overdentures between 1985 and 2004 were invited to the follow-up and 58 attended the clinical examination. The total amount of implants examined and still in use was 197. The average number of implants installed was three (range 2-4), and the mean length of the implants was 12 mm (range 8-21 mm). There were altogether 48 overdentures with a bar connection and 10 with a ball connection. RESULTS: The most frequent prosthetic complications were technical: loosening of the retentive mechanism (39.7%) and breakage of the matrices (5.2%). The most common peri-implant soft-tissue findings were bleeding and slight hyperplasia. The implant-supported overdentures of 19 patients (32.8%) had been renewed, while 39 patients (67.2%) still used their original overdentures, of which the oldest was 20 years old. CONCLUSION: The results of this long-term follow-up study show that the outcome of implant-supported mandibular overdenture treatment was excellent. The patients were satisfied with the treatment, regardless of the attachment type used. Removable overdentures are more easy to clean and can be cleaned outside the patient's mouth, whereas fixed-implant full-arch dentures in the edentulous mandible require much more time-consuming hygiene. This kind of overdenture treatment is suitable also in the elderly, even though their ability to practice appropriate oral hygiene might be decreased.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this follow-up study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of implant-supported or implant-retained mandibular overdenture treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Altogether 112 patients treated with implant-supported overdentures between 1985 and 2004 were invited to the follow-up and 58 attended the clinical examination. The total amount of implants examined and still in use was 197. The average number of implants installed was three (range 2-4), and the mean length of the implants was 12 mm (range 8-21 mm). There were altogether 48 overdentures with a bar connection and 10 with a ball connection. RESULTS: The most frequent prosthetic complications were technical: loosening of the retentive mechanism (39.7%) and breakage of the matrices (5.2%). The most common peri-implant soft-tissue findings were bleeding and slight hyperplasia. The implant-supported overdentures of 19 patients (32.8%) had been renewed, while 39 patients (67.2%) still used their original overdentures, of which the oldest was 20 years old. CONCLUSION: The results of this long-term follow-up study show that the outcome of implant-supported mandibular overdenture treatment was excellent. The patients were satisfied with the treatment, regardless of the attachment type used. Removable overdentures are more easy to clean and can be cleaned outside the patient's mouth, whereas fixed-implant full-arch dentures in the edentulous mandible require much more time-consuming hygiene. This kind of overdenture treatment is suitable also in the elderly, even though their ability to practice appropriate oral hygiene might be decreased.