Effect of Two Retention Modalities on Single Midline Implant Supporting Mandibular Overdenture

Ahmed Shaaban; Ahmed Ibrahim   Mahrous; Sara Maher   Shaaban; Mohamed  Denewar

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2023.10608

Authors

Ahmed Shaaban Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Future University, New Cairo, Egypt https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4697-3732
Ahmed Ibrahim Mahrous Department of Prosthodontics, Vision Medical College, Jeddah, KSA https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8588-6266
Sara Maher Shaaban Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Badr University, Cairo, Egypt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5199-7256
Mohamed Denewar Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Delta University for Science and Technology, Mansoura, Egypt

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2023.10608

Keywords:

Single implant, overdenture, attachments

Abstract

AIM: The purpose of this research was to examine the effect of locator attachment versus retention silicone lining material on the supporting structure and retention of a single midline implant supporting mandibular overdenture.

METHODS: Sixteen patients with completely edentulous mandibles were selected for this study and divided into two groups. In all patients, a single implant was placed at midline area after cone-beam radiography was performed. Group I was retained with locator attachment, while Group II was retained with silicone material. Follow-up was carried out at denture insertion, 6 months and 12 months following insertion. Peri-implant bone loss as well as posterior bone loss was evaluated using cone-beam computerized tomography and retention was evaluated using force meter device and wire hook attaches to the prosthesis.

RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in peri-implant bone loss between the two groups at the 2nd follow-up period and at the end of the study period (p ≤ 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in posterior bone loss between the two studied groups (p ≤ 0.05) and regarding retention that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups along the follow-up periods.

CONCLUSION: From the results obtained from this study, it could be concluded that locator attachment showed lower peri-implant bone loss than retention silicone liner in the overall follow-up period with a statistically significant difference. This was attributed to the decrease in the effect of the resiliency of retention silicone liner over time and the more permanent effect of locator attachment.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

Author Biography

Mohamed Denewar, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Delta University for Science and Technology, Mansoura, Egypt

lecturer of prosthodontics, Delta University for Science and Technology

References

Bakke M, Holm B, Gotfredsen K. Masticatory function and patient satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures: A prospective 5-year study. Int J Prosthodont. 2009;15(6):575-81. PMid:12475165

Heckmann SM, Heussinger S, Linke JJ, Graef F, Proschel P. Improvement and long-term stability of neuromuscular adaptation in implant-supported overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;20(11):1200-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01722.x PMid:19832766 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01722.x

Ueda T, Kremer U, Katsoulis J, Mericske-Stern R. Long-term results of mandibular implants supporting an overdenture: Implant survival, failures, and crestal bone level changes. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;26(2):365-72. PMid:21483890

Donatsky O. Osseointegrated dental implants with ball attachments supporting overdentures in patients with mandibular alveolar ridge atrophy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1993;8(2):162-6. PMid:8359871

Gotfredsen K, Holm B. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or bar attachments: A randomized prospective five-year study. Int J Prosthodont. 2010;13(2):125-30. PMid:11203620

Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, Müller F, Naert I, et al. Mandibular two implant supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients--the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J. 2017;207(4):185-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.728 PMid:19696851 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.728

Sadowsky SJ. Mandibular implant-retained overdentures: A literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 2011;86(5):468-73. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.119921 PMid:11725274 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.119921

Gulizio MP, Agar JR, Kelly JR, Taylor TD. Effect of implant angulation upon retention of overdenture attachments. J Prosthodont. 2015;14(1):3-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2005.00005.x PMid:15733129 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2005.00005.x

Cordioli G, Majzoub Z, Castagna S. Mandibular overdentures anchored to single implants: A five-year prospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78(2):159-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70120-3 PMid:9260133 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70120-3

Krennmair G, Ulm C. The symphyseal single-tooth implant for anchorage of a mandibular complete denture in geriatric patients: A clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;16(1):98-104. PMid:11280368

Schneider GB, Synan WJ. Use of a single implant to retain a mandibular complete overdenture on the compromised atrophic alveolar ridge: A case report. Spec Care Dentist. 2018;31(4):138-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-4505.2011.00196.x PMid:21729123 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-4505.2011.00196.x

Alsabeeha NH, Payne AG, De Silva RK, Thomson WM. Mandibular single-implant overdentures: Preliminary results of a randomised-control trial on early loading with different implant diameters and attachment systems. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;22(3):330-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02004.x PMid:20868456 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02004.x

Cehreli MC, Karasoy D, Kokat AM, Akca K, Eckert SE. Systematic review of prosthetic maintenance requirements for implant supported overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;25(1):163-80. PMid:20209199

Preoteasa E, Meleşcanu-Imre MA, Preoteasa CT, Marin M, Lerner H. Aspects of oral morphology as decision factors in mini-implant supported overdenture. Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2010;51(2):309-14.

Burns DR. Mandibular implant overdenture treatment: Consensus and controversy. J Prosthodont. 2017;9(1):37-46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849x.2000.00037.x PMid:11074027 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2000.00037.x

Speikerman H, Donath K, Hassely T, Jovanic S, Richter J. Atlas of Dental Medicine. New York, USA: Theme Medical Publishers. Inc.; 1995.

Chee W, Jivraj S. Treatment planning of the edentulous mandible. Br Dent J. 2016;201(6):337-47. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4814041 PMid:16990883 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4814041

Gharechahi J, Rostamkhamni F, Saboori A. Effect of clasp design on stress distribution pattern of distal extension abutment: A finite element method analysis. J Mash Dent Sch. 2010;34:65.

Chan HL, Misch K, Wang HL. Dental imaging in implant treatment planning. Implant Dent. 2018;19(4):288-98. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181e59ebd PMid:20683285 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3181e59ebd

Walton JN, Glick N, Macentee MI. A randomized clinical trial comparing patient satisfaction and prosthetic outcomes with mandibular overdentures retained by one or two implants. Int J Prosthodont. 2014;22(4):331-9. PMid:19639067

Cochran DL, Nummikoski V, Schoolfield JD, Jones AA, Oates TW. A prospective multicenter 5-year radiographic evaluation of crestal bone levels over time in 596 dental implants placed in 192 patients. J Periodontol. 2018;80(5):725-33. https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.080401 PMid:19405825 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2009.080401