Journal List > J Korean Acad Prosthodont > v.49(4) > 1034673

TOOLS
Lee and Sohn: Clinical evaluation of implant retained overdentures using two implant and Locator attachments in the fully edentulous mandibles
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2011;49(4):283-290.

Published online: 18 December 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2011.49.4.283

Clinical evaluation of implant retained overdentures using two implant and Locator attachments in the fully edentulous mandibles

Ju-Hyoung Lee, DDS, Dong-Seok Sohn, DDS, PhD∗

Division of Oral and Maxillofacial, Department of Dentistry, Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, Daegu, Korea

∗Corresponding Author: Dong-Seok Sohn Division of Oral and Maxillofacial, Department of Dentistry, Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, 3056-6 Daemyung 4-dong, Nam-gu, Daegu, 705-718, Korea +82 53 650 4291: e-mail, dssohn@cu.ac.kr

Received 21 July 20116 October 2011       Accepted 17 October 2011

Copyright © 2011 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Purpose

This study compared the marginal bone loss around dental implant that were placed in the canine areas of the mandibles and finded the survival rate of implants, marginal bone loss around implants and prosthetic complications in 10 patients treated with overdentures retained with Locator attachments.

Materials and methods

Ten patients who had received implant retained overdentures in the mandibules using two implants and Locator attachments at Daegu Catholic University Medical Center from 2004 to 2010 were included in this study. Evaluations of the survival rate of implants, marginal bone loss and prosthetic complications were performed.

Results

Implants placed in this study showed a 100% survival rate and the average annual bone loss was 1.03 mm ± 0.20 mm in the first year. The patients have verbally indicated that they are comfortable and that their overdentures function well. But, implant retained overdentures had various prosthetic complications such as male change, relining, rebasing and denture fracture.

Conclusion

Implant retained overdentures using two implant and Locator attachments in the fully edentulous mandibles is considered as a stable way for long terms because of minimal invasive operation, simple prosthetic process and easy repair. (J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2011;49:283-90)

Keywords: Mandible, Implant retained overdenture, Locator attachment, Marginal bone loss around implant, Prosthetic complication

REFERENCES

1.Mericske-Stern RD., Taylor TD., Belser U. Management of the edentulous patient. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000. 11:108–25.
2.Naert I., Gizani S., Vuylsteke M., Van Steenberghe D. A 5-year prospective randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining a mandibular overdenture: prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction. J Oral Rehabil. 1999. 26:195–202.
crossref
3.Raghoebar GM., Meijer HJ., Stegenga B., van' t Hof MA., van Oort RP., Vissink A. Effectiveness of three treatment modalities for the edentulous mandible. A five-year randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000. 11:195–201.
4.Thomason JM. The McGill Consensus Statement on Overdentures. Mandibular 2-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2002. 10:95–6.
5.Mericske-Stern R., Steinlin ST., Marti P., Geering AH. Peri-implant mucosal aspects of ITI implants supporting overdentures. A five-year longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994. 5:9–18.
crossref
6.Kim SO. Implant Overdenture. Seoul: Myungmoon Publishing;2007. p. 115–8.
7.Buser D., Mericske-Stern R., Bernard JP., Behneke A., Behneke N., Hirt HP., Belser UC., Lang NP. Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1997. 8:161–72.
crossref
8.Adell R., Lekholm U., Rockler B., Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981. 10:387–416.
crossref
9.Cox JF., Zarb GA. The longitudinal clinical efficacy of os-seointegrated dental implants: a 3-year report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1987. 2:91–100.
10.van Steenberghe D., Quirynen M., Calberson L., Demanet M. A prospective evaluation of the fate of 697 consecutive intraoral fixtures ad modem Branemark in the rehabilitation of edentulism. J Head Neck Pathol. 1987. 6:53–8.
11.Adell R., Eriksson B., Lekholm U., Branemark PI., Jemt T. Longterm follow-up study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of totally edentulous jaws. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990. 5:347–59.
12.Johns RB., Jemt T., Heath MR., Hutton JE., McKenna S., McNamara DC., van Steenberghe D., Taylor R., Watson RM., Herrmann I. A multicenter study of overdentures supported by Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1992. 7:513–22.
crossref
13.Naert I., Gizani S., Vuylsteke M., van Steenberghe D. A 5-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants in the mandibular overdenture therapy. Part I: Peri-implant outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1998. 9:170–7.
crossref
14.Mericske-Stern R. Clinical evaluation of overdenture restorations supported by osseointegrated titanium implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1990. 5:375–83.
15.Cooper LF., Scurria MS., Lang LA., Guckes AD., Moriarty JD., Felton DA. Treatment of edentulism using Astra Tech implants and ball abutments to retain mandibular overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1999. 14:646–53.
16.Tallgren A. The continuing reduction of the residual alveolar ridges in complete denture wearers: a mixed-longitudinal study covering 25 years. J Prosthet Dent. 1972. 27:120–32.
crossref
17.Kim YS. Implant adapted occlusion. J Korean Dent Assoc. 2005. 43:406–15.
18.Wismeijer D., van Waas MA., Kalk W. Factors to consider in selecting an occlusal concept for patients with implants in the edentulous mandible. J Prosthet Dent. 1995. 74:380–4.
crossref
19.Kim SO. Implant Overdenture. Seoul: Myungmoon Publishing;2007. p. 311–22.

Fig. 1.
Two implants were placed in anterior mandible. 4 mini implants were placed simultaneously for immediate loading. Note bone defect around at the #43 implant.
jkap-49-283f1.tif
Fig. 2.
Mineral allograft was grafted in the bone defect and collagen membrane was covered over the bone.
jkap-49-283f2.tif
Fig. 3.
Postoperative panoramic radiogram.
jkap-49-283f3.tif
Fig. 4.
A: Fixed provisional restoration was delivered after the stitch-out, B: Lacator attachment was seated on the implant with torque of 30 Ncm after 8 months healing period. Mini implants were removed out when final denture was delivered.
jkap-49-283f4.tif
Fig. 5.
A: Periapical radiograms after delivery of final denture, B: Periapical radiograms after 6.5 years show minimal bone loss around implants.
jkap-49-283f5.tif
Fig. 6.
References used to measure actual marginal bone loss. a: The distance from top level of implant platform to implant apex. b: The distance from top level of implant platform to marginal bone contact level.
jkap-49-283f6.tif
Table 1.
Datum of patients and implants
Patient number Gender Age PMH Manufacture Diameter Length GBR Stage Opposing jaw
1 F 50 N TSV® 4.7 13 Autobone+ Orthoblast II® 1' Implant overdenture
2 M 83 N Replace® 3.5 13 N 2' Complete denture
3 M 62 Dysuresia Replace® 4.3 13 OrthoblastII® + Tutodent® 1' Complete denture
4 F 65 Hypertension, Hwa-byung Replus® 3.7 13 Auto bone + orthoblast II® 2' Natural teeth
5 F 69 Osteoporosis UNI® 4.1 14 N 2' Implant overdenture
6 F 68 N TSV® 3.7 13 Autobone. + Biocera® + Tutodent® 2' Removable partial denture
7 M 61 Diabetes TSV® 3.7 13 N 1' Complete denture
8 F 68 Osteoporosis Dentis® 3.7 12 N 1' Complete denture
9 M 41 N Legacy® 3.7 13 N 1' Implant overdenture
10 F 51 N Dentis® 3.7 12 Allotis® + Orthoblast II® + Lyoplant® 2' Implant overdenture

(Orthoblast II

® Integra, Irvine, USA). (Tutodent®, Tutogen Medical Gmbh, Neunkirchen, Germany), (Biocera®, Oscotec, Cheonan, Repulic of Korea), (Allotis®, Bio Tis, Seoul, Republic of Korea), (Lyoplant®. B. Braun, Melsungen, Germany).

Table 2.
Number of implants placed according to implant length and diameter
  3.5 mm 3.7 mm 4.1 mm 4.3 mm 4.7 mm Total
12 mm   4       4
13 mm 1 8   3 2 14
14 mm     2     2
Total 1 12 2 3 2
Table 3.
Life table analysis of cumulative survival rate after the insertion
Loading period (month) Number of implant Number of failure Survival rate (percent)
- 12 month 4 0 100
13 - 24 month 4 0 100
25 - 36 month 4 0 100
37 - 48 month 2 0 100
85 - 96 month 4 0 100
97 month - 2 0 100
Table 4.
Marginal bone loss at the first year
Patient number #33 (mm) #43 (mm)
1 1.15 1.03
2 0.66 1.15
3 1.53 1.13
4 0.75 1.28
5 1.51 2.16
6 0.88 0.91
7 2.25 1.32
8 1.3 1.17
9 1.25 1.39
10 0.75 0.75
Table 5.
Prosthetic complications
Patient number Denture fracture Reling, Rebasing Male change Locator attachment change
1   2    
2   1    
3   3 1 Schedule
4   2    
5 1 1    
6        
7     1  
8        
9   2    
10   1 1
TOOLS
Similar articles