M Viswambaran1, Vimal Arora2, S H Gupta3, R K Dhiman4, N Thiruvalluvan5. 1. Commanding Officer, Military Dental Centre, Jabalpur 482001, India. 2. DGDS & Colonel Commandant, O/o DGDS, Adjutant General's Branch, IHQ, MoD, L Block, New Delhi 110001, India. 3. Commandant, AFDC, New Delhi 110010, India. 4. Commanding Officer, 14 Corps Dental Unit, C/o 56 APO, India. 5. Graded Specialist (Prosthodontics), Military Dental Centre, Ambala Cantt, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies regarding the immediate loading of splinted implants retaining/supporting mandibular dentures have reported promising results, but studies comparing splinted and unsplinted attachments for supporting overdentures with immediate loading are limited. Scientific literature is sparse comparing various attachment systems and patient satisfaction in response to immediately loaded implant supported overdentures. METHODS: A total of 30 completely edentulous patients male or female, in the age group of 54-78 years (mean age 65 years), wearing conventional complete dentures were selected and randomly divided in to two groups. A total of 60 implants were placed in the interforaminal area of the mental symphysis (two implants per patients) in 30 patients. Two types of attachment systems namely Ball for group-A and Bar for group-B were used and immediate loading done. Implants were evaluated clinically and radiographically at baseline, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 9 months. All clinical and radiographic parameters were subjected to statistical analysis. RESULT: The implant survival rate for group-A (ball attachment) was 93.3% and implant survival rate for group-B (bar attachment) was 93.3%. The overall implant survival rate was not dependent on the attachment system. There was no significant difference in the crestal bone loss in mesial, and distal side in implants with respect to ball and bar attachment for different period of observation (F = 0.25; P = 0.910; F = 0.07; P = 0.992 respectively). CONCLUSION: Overdenture supported by two implants should be the minimum gold standard in the rehabilitation of completely edentulous patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies regarding the immediate loading of splinted implants retaining/supporting mandibular dentures have reported promising results, but studies comparing splinted and unsplinted attachments for supporting overdentures with immediate loading are limited. Scientific literature is sparse comparing various attachment systems and patient satisfaction in response to immediately loaded implant supported overdentures. METHODS: A total of 30 completely edentulouspatients male or female, in the age group of 54-78 years (mean age 65 years), wearing conventional complete dentures were selected and randomly divided in to two groups. A total of 60 implants were placed in the interforaminal area of the mental symphysis (two implants per patients) in 30 patients. Two types of attachment systems namely Ball for group-A and Bar for group-B were used and immediate loading done. Implants were evaluated clinically and radiographically at baseline, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months and 9 months. All clinical and radiographic parameters were subjected to statistical analysis. RESULT: The implant survival rate for group-A (ball attachment) was 93.3% and implant survival rate for group-B (bar attachment) was 93.3%. The overall implant survival rate was not dependent on the attachment system. There was no significant difference in the crestal bone loss in mesial, and distal side in implants with respect to ball and bar attachment for different period of observation (F = 0.25; P = 0.910; F = 0.07; P = 0.992 respectively). CONCLUSION: Overdenture supported by two implants should be the minimum gold standard in the rehabilitation of completely edentulouspatients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ball attachment; Bar attachment; Immediate loading; Implant; Overdenture
Authors: J S Feine; G E Carlsson; M A Awad; A Chehade; W J Duncan; S Gizani; T Head; G Heydecke; J P Lund; M MacEntee; R Mericske-Stern; P Mojon; J A Morais; I Naert; A G T Payne; J Penrod; G T Stoker; A Tawse-Smith; T D Taylor; J M Thomason; W M Thomson; D Wismeijer Journal: Gerodontology Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Carl E Misch; Hom-Lay Wang; Craig M Misch; Mohamed Sharawy; Jack Lemons; Kenneth W M Judy Journal: Implant Dent Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 2.454
Authors: Murat Cavit Cehreli; Durdu Karasoy; Ali Murat Kökat; Kivanç Akça; Steven Eckert Journal: Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants Date: 2010 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.804