Juliana Marotti1, Bodo Gatzweiler1, Mona Wolfart2, Martin Sasse2, Matthias Kern2, Stefan Wolfart1. 1. Department of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, Centre for Implantology, Medical School RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany. 2. Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics and Dental Materials, Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective clinical study was to compare the maintenance interventions required for solely implant-retained overdentures (I-OD) with that of overdentures retained by a combination of telescopic crowns and implants (T/I-OD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The participants in this study were 22 patients who initially presented either with a removable complete denture (n = 11) or with an overdenture retained by 1 to 2 telescopic crowns on natural teeth (n = 11). Subsequently, the total number of abutments was increased to 5 to 6 (maxilla) or 4 to 5 (mandible) by placing implants in strategically advantageous regions, generating two distinct groups: I-OD and T/I-OD. Ball attachments were connected to the implants and integrated into the existing denture. The maintenance aspects were analyzed according to the type of treatment (preventive, biological, and technical) and to the severity of treatment (minimal, moderate, and extensive). RESULTS: During a mean observation time of 6.5 years, the tooth survival rate was 89% (T/I-OD) and the implant survival rate 100% (both groups). The survival rates of the overdentures ranged from 90.9% (I-OD) to 100% (T/I-OD). A mean number of 0.6 (I-ODs) and 2.0 (T/I-OD) treatments were performed for biological reasons; and 8.2 (I-ODs) and 9.6 (T/I-OD) for technical reasons, per patient, during the observation time. From biological aspects, significantly more extensive maintenance was found to be necessary in the T/I-OD group than in the I-OD group. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic concept of implant placement under existing prostheses was promising when performed in indicated cases.
PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective clinical study was to compare the maintenance interventions required for solely implant-retained overdentures (I-OD) with that of overdentures retained by a combination of telescopic crowns and implants (T/I-OD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The participants in this study were 22 patients who initially presented either with a removable complete denture (n = 11) or with an overdenture retained by 1 to 2 telescopic crowns on natural teeth (n = 11). Subsequently, the total number of abutments was increased to 5 to 6 (maxilla) or 4 to 5 (mandible) by placing implants in strategically advantageous regions, generating two distinct groups: I-OD and T/I-OD. Ball attachments were connected to the implants and integrated into the existing denture. The maintenance aspects were analyzed according to the type of treatment (preventive, biological, and technical) and to the severity of treatment (minimal, moderate, and extensive). RESULTS: During a mean observation time of 6.5 years, the tooth survival rate was 89% (T/I-OD) and the implant survival rate 100% (both groups). The survival rates of the overdentures ranged from 90.9% (I-OD) to 100% (T/I-OD). A mean number of 0.6 (I-ODs) and 2.0 (T/I-OD) treatments were performed for biological reasons; and 8.2 (I-ODs) and 9.6 (T/I-OD) for technical reasons, per patient, during the observation time. From biological aspects, significantly more extensive maintenance was found to be necessary in the T/I-OD group than in the I-OD group. CONCLUSIONS: The therapeutic concept of implant placement under existing prostheses was promising when performed in indicated cases.