We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25 (2010), No. 3     15. May 2010
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25 (2010), No. 3  (15.05.2010)

Page 589-597, PubMed:20556260

Removable Implant-Prosthodontic Rehabilitation of the Edentulous Mandible: Five-Year Results of Different Prosthetic Anchorage Concepts
Weinländer, Michael / Piehslinger, Eva / Krennmair, Gerald
Purpose: The present study evaluated implant and peri-implant outcomes as well as prosthodontic maintenance efforts for implant/bar-supported mandibular prostheses with different prosthesis anchorage systems.
Materials and Methods: Seventy-six patients who received two or four interforaminal implants were assigned to one of three different bar designs and subsequently to different prosthesis supporting systems. Forty-nine patients received implants and a mucosa-supported implant-retained overdenture (OD) with an ovoid bar (two implants; design 1) or multiple ovoid bars (four implants; design 2). Twenty-seven patients received four implants and a rigid implant-supported prosthesis (ISP) with a milled bar (design 3). Implant survival, peri-implant parameters (marginal bone resorption, pocket depth, and plaque, bleeding, gingival, and calculus indices), and postinsertion prosthodontic maintenance were followed over a 5-year period and compared among the different retention modalities. At the most recent follow-up examination, subjective patient satisfaction was additionally evaluated using a simplified scoring system (ranging from 1 = not satisfactory to 5 = excellent).
Results: Implant survival rates (100%) and all peri-implant parameters evaluated showed no differences among the three designs used for implant prosthesis anchorage. Prosthodontic maintenance did not differ between the different ODs (OD design 1: average of 1.04 maintenance visits/year/patient; OD design 2: 1.2 maintenance visits/year/patient), but it was significantly lower for the dentures that were rigidly stabilized with milled bars (ISP: 0.37 maintenance visits/year/patient). A high subjective satisfaction rate (range: 4.5 to 5.0) was registered at the final examination, without any differences among the designs used.
Conclusions: Rigid anchorage with milled bars on four-implant prostheses combined with a metal-reinforced framework showed a lower extent of prosthodontic maintenance issues than round bars on two- or four-implant overdentures with resilient denture stabilization. Nevertheless, implants and peri-implant structures were not negatively affected by either resilient or rigid anchorage mechanisms.

Keywords: edentulous mandible, implant-supported overdentures, milled bar, prosthodontic maintenance, round bar