Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fundamental Surgical and Prosthetic Principles of Mandibular Implant Assisted Prostheses

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Mandibular Implant Prostheses

  • 1232 Accesses

Abstract

The introduction of dental implants has dramatically changed the lives of many edentulous patients by providing a mechanism of anchorage that contributes to stabilizing the mandibular denture during function. This has provided a variety of new options for the treatment of complete upper and lower edentulism (Emami et al., Periodontol 66:119–31, 2014).

This chapter will discuss the fundamental principles and differences between the implant-retained and implant-supported mandibular dentures. The implant-retained overdenture presents a unique clinical situation that requires distinct surgical and prosthetic considerations to help optimize the clinical outcome (Kimoto et al., Clin Oral Implants Res 20:838–43, 2009). A multitude of stud-type attachment systems are available today to provide retention and stability for the mandibular complete implant-retained denture. A description of the various morphological characteristics and the impact that they have on the retention and wear behavior of stud attachments will be reviewed. This chapter will also cover the basic surgical and prosthetic principles that underline the planning of implant-supported removable and fixed mandibular prosthesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Atwood DA. Reduction of residual ridges: a major oral disease entity. J Prosthet Dent. 1971;26(3):266–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tallgren A. Alveolar bone loss in denture wearers as related to facial morphology. Acta Odontol Scand. 1970;28(2):251–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Attard NJ, Zarb GA. Long-term treatment outcomes in edentulous patients with implant-fixed prostheses: the Toronto study. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17(4):417–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Gerodontology. 2002;19:3–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, M€uller F, Naert I, Ellis JS, Barclay C, Butterworth C, Scott B, Lynch C, Stewardson D, Smith P, Welfare R, Hyde P, McAndrew R, Fenlon M, Barclay S, Barker D. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients–the York consensus statement. Br Dent J. 2009;207:185–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Thomason JM, Kelly SA, Bendkowski A, Ellis JS. Two implant retained overdentures—a review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements. J Dent. 2012;40:22–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Naert I, Alsaadi G, van Steenberghe D, Quirynen M. A 10-year randomized clinical trial on the influence of splinted and unsplinted oral implants retaining mandibular overdentures: peri-implant outcome. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(5):695–702.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Thomason JM, Lund JP, Chehade A, Feine JS. Patient satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures 6 months after delivery. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16:467–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kordatzis K, Wright PS, Meijer HJ. Posterior mandibular residual ridge resorption in patients with conventional dentures and implant overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18:447–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Attard N, Wei X, Laporte A, Zarb GA, Ungar WJ. A cost minimization analysis of implant treatment in mandibular edentulous patients. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16(3):271–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Naert I, Quirynen M, Theuniers G, van Steenberghe D. Prosthetic aspects of osseointegrated fixtures supporting overdentures. A 4-year report. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;65(5):671–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kimoto S, Pan S, Drolet N, Feine JS. Rotational movements of mandibular two-implant overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(8):838–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Critchlow SB, Ellis JS. Prognostic indicators for conventional complete denture therapy: a review of the literature. J Dent. 2010;38(1):2–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Awad MA, Lund JP, Dufresne E, Feine JS. Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: satisfaction and functional assessment. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16(2):117–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Oda K, Kanazawa M, Takeshita S, Minakuchi S. Influence of implant number on the movement of mandibular implant overdentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117(3):380–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Emami E, de Souza RF, Bernier J, Rompré P, Feine JS. Patient perceptions of the mandibular three-implant overdenture: a practice-based study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(6):639–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Petropoulos VC, Smith W. Maximum dislodging forces of implant overdenture stud attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002;17:526–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Burns DR, Unger JW, Elswick RK Jr, Beck DA. Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures: Part I: retention, stability, and tissue response. J Prosthet Dent. 1995;73(4):354–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Petropoulos VC, Smith W, Kousvelari E. Comparison of retention and release periods for implant overdenture attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997;12(2):176–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Kampen F, Cune M, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Retention and postinsertion maintenance of bar-clip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: an in vivo comparison after 3 months of function. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2003;14(6):720–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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(3):195–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, Cronin RJ Jr. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont. 2004;13:221–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Leung T, Preiskel HW. Retention profiles of stud-type precision attachments. Int J Prosthodont. 1991;4(2):175–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lehmann KM, Arnim FV. Studies on the retention forces of snap-on attachments. Quintessence Dent Technol. 1978;7:45–8.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Geckili O, Cilingir A, Erdogan O, Kesoglu AC, Bilmenoglu C, Ozdiler A, Bilhan H. The influence of momentary retention forces on patient satisfaction and quality of life of two-implant-retained mandibular overdenture wearers. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(2):397–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Abi Nader S, de Souza RF, Fortin D, De Koninck L, Fromentin O, Albuquerque Junior RF. Effect of simulated masticatory loading on the retention of stud attachments for implant overdentures. J Oral Rehabil. 2011;38(3):157–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Nguyen CT, Masri R, Driscoll CF, Romberg E. The effect of denture cleansing solutions on the retention of pink locator attachments: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2010;19(3):226–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. You W, Masri R, Romberg E, Driscoll CF, You T. The effect of denture cleansing solutions on the retention of pink locator attachments after multiple pulls: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2011;20(6):464–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Jabbour Z, Fromentin O, Lassauzay C, Abi Nader S, Correa JA, Feine J, de Albuquerque Junior RF. Effect of implant angulation on attachment retention in mandibular two-implant overdentures: a clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2014;16(4):565–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fromentin O, Picard B, Tavernier B. In vitro study of the retention and mechanical fatigue behavior of four implant overdenture stud-type attachments. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1999;11:391–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Gamborena JI, Hazelton LR, NaBadalung D, Brudvik J. Retention of ERA direct overdenture attachments before and after fatigue loading. Int J Prosthodont. 1997;10:123–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fromentin O, Lassauzay C, Nader SA, Feine J, de Albuquerque RF Jr. Wear of matrix overdenture attachments after one to eight years of clinical use. J Prosthet Dent. 2012;107(3):191–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fromentin O, Lassauzay C, Nader SA, Feine J, de Albuquerque RF Jr. Wear of ball attachments after 1 to 8 years of clinical use: a qualitative analysis. Int J Prosthodont. 2011;24(3):270–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pigozzo MN, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE, Vaz LG. The service life of implant-retained overdenture attachment systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2009;102(2):74–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Emami E, Michaud PL, Sallaleh I, Feine JS. Implant-assisted complete prostheses. Periodontol 2000. 2014;66(1):119–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brånemark PI, Engstrand P, Ohrnell LO, Gröndahl K, Nilsson P, Hagberg K, Darle C, Lekholm U. Brånemark Novum: a new treatment concept for rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible. Preliminary results from a prospective clinical follow-up study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 1999;1(1):2–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. De Kok IJ, Chang KH, Lu TS, Cooper LF. Comparison of three-implant-supported fixed dentures and two-implant-retained overdentures in the edentulous mandible: a pilot study of treatment efficacy and patient satisfaction. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011;26(2):415–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. De Bruyn H, Kisch J, Collaert B, Lindén U, Nilner K, Dvärsäter L. Fixed mandibular restorations on three early-loaded regular platform Brånemark implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2001;3(4):176–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Apostolakis D, Brown JE. The anterior loop of the inferior alveolar nerve: prevalence, measurement of its length and a recommendation for interforaminal implant installation based on cone beam CT imaging. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23(9):1022–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Maló P, de Araújo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Gravito I. All-on-4® treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the completely edentulous mandible: a 7-year clinical and 5-year radiographic retrospective case series with risk assessment for implant failure and marginal bone level. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;(17 Suppl 2):e531–41.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Rangert B, Jemt T, Jörneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1989;4(3):241–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Romeo E, Storelli S. Systematic review of the survival rate and the biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of fixed dental prostheses with cantilevers on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean of 5 years follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;(23 Suppl 6):39–49.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Elsyad MA, Hegazy SA, Hammouda NI, Al-Tonbary GY, Habib AA. Chewing efficiency and electromyographic activity of masseter muscle with three designs of implant-supported mandibular overdentures. A cross-over study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(6):742–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Chuang SK, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27(1):102–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Attard NJ, Zarb GA, Laporte A. Long-term treatment costs associated with implant-supported mandibular prostheses in edentulous patients. Int J Prosthodont. 2005;18(2):117–23.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Abi Nader S, Eimar H, Momani M, Shang K, Daniel NG, Tamimi F. Plaque accumulation beneath maxillary All-on-4™ implant-supported prostheses. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17(5):932–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Sadowsky SJ, Hansen PW. Evidence-based criteria for differential treatment planning of implant restorations for the mandibular edentulous patient. J Prosthodont. 2014;23(2):104–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Samer Abi Nader BSc, DMD, MSc, FRCD(C)

  2. Division of Prosthodontics, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Samer Mesmar DMD., MSc, FRCD(C)

Authors
  1. Samer Abi Nader BSc, DMD, MSc, FRCD(C)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samer Mesmar DMD., MSc, FRCD(C)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samer Abi Nader BSc, DMD, MSc, FRCD(C) .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Elham Emami

  2. Faculty of Dentistry, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Jocelyne Feine

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nader, S.A., Mesmar, S. (2018). Fundamental Surgical and Prosthetic Principles of Mandibular Implant Assisted Prostheses. In: Emami, E., Feine, J. (eds) Mandibular Implant Prostheses. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71181-2_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71181-2_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71179-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71181-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation