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
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 9 (1994), No. 5     1. Sep. 1994
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 9 (1994), No. 5  (01.09.1994)

Page 548-555


A Comparative Evaluation of Some Outcome Measures of Implant Systems and Suprastructure Types in Mandibular Implant-Overdenture Treatment
Cune, Marco S. / Putter, Cornelis de
The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences in implant survival, health of the peri-implant tissues, and/or the level of oral hygiene could be observed among five implant systems and, further, two suprastructure modalities in mandibular implant-overdenture treatment. The implant systems included were Bonefit ITI (n = 71 patients), IMZ (n = 150 patients), Brånemark (n = 47 patients), Screw-Vent (n = 35 patients), and Bosker TMI (n = 27 patients), with a mean observation period of 21.2 months (SD 8.8) after implantation. The implants were either nonconnected (n = 72 patients) or connected (n = 255 patients). For statistical reasons, one implant for each patient was randomly selected and processed for data analysis. The health of the peri-implant tissues was assessed on a four-point scale at four sites for each implant and the oral hygiene was assessed dichotomously, by two independent observers. The interobserver agreement was considered acceptable with Cohen's kappa 0.62 and 0.68 respectively. With regard to implant survival and oral hygiene, no major differences could be observed, both among implant systems and between the suprastructure types. The health of the peri-implant tissues surrounding Bonefit ITI implants appeared somewhat healthier when compared to the other implants, especially at mesial sites (P = .02). No statistically significant differences in health of peri-implant tissues for any of the sites could be demonstrated between implants that were and implants that were not connected. It was concluded that for the three outcome measures implant survival, health of the peri-implant tissues, and oral hygiene, differences between implant systems and differences among suprastructure types in mandibular overdenture treatment were small and probably not clinically relevant.

Keywords: clinical study, dental implants, overdentures, suprastructures