Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Maintenance requirements and marginal bone loss associated with implant-retained overdentures: a retrospective cohort study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the maintenance requirements and the presence of prosthetic complications associated with marginal bone loss in the implant-retained bar and locator prostheses.

Materials and methods

The study was executed between the years 2013 and 2018 on 114 patients who had undergone 283 dental implants. Patients were examined at follow-up recall sessions at 12 and 24 months after the placement of the dentures. The clinical examination also included intraoral and extraoral examinations of the patients; compatibility of the prostheses placed to about occlusion; an adaptation of the prosthesis to the tissues, health, and continuity of the soft tissues; complaints of the patients; implant success rates; and marginal bone loss, and prosthetic complications were evaluated at follow-up sessions, and statistical analysis was performed.

Results

Locator attachment was placed in 94 patients with separated mandibles and maxillae, and a removable prosthesis with a bar attachment was placed in 20 patients. When evaluating the level of marginal bone loss regardless of the presence of complications, the area where the implant was set, the number of days after loading, and the type of retainer, it was found to be significant at the end of the 12th the 24th months. The results showed a significant relationship between the prosthesis type and the presence of complications at month 24 (p < 0.05). There was no significant relationship between the position of the denture and the presence of complications at month 12 (p > 0.05). There was no significant relationship between the location of the denture and the presence of complications at month 24 (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Complications do not affect marginal bone loss, but the resulting marginal bone loss is the result of the patient not paying enough attention to oral hygiene. Routine inspections of the prosthesis after the completion of treatment seem to be important. If the requirements resulting from these checks are met, complications that may occur in the future will be prevented.

Clinical relevance

The maintenance requirements and the presence of prosthetic complications associated with marginal bone loss in the implant-retained bar and locator prostheses were evaluated. Complications occurred more frequently with the bar-supported removable implant prostheses.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemt T, Lekholm U, Adell R (1989) Osseointegreated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous patients: a preliminary study on 876 consecutively placed fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 4

  2. Economy P-B (2020) Prosthodontic principles in dental implantology. Implant Surgery, An Issue of Dental Clinics of North America 65:135

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brügger OE et al (2015) Implant therapy in a surgical specialty clinic: an analysis of patients, indications, surgical procedures, risk factors, and early failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30:151–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sailer I, Karasan D, Todorovic A, Ligoutsikou M, Pjetursson BE (2022) Prosthetic failures in dental implant therapy. Periodontol 2000(88):130–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Papaspyridakos P et al (2020) Technical complications and prosthesis survival rates with implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses: a retrospective study with 1-to 12-year follow-up. J Prosthodont 29:3–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jung RE et al (2008) A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns. Clin Oral Implant Res 19:119–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A (2012) A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP s) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implant Res 23:22–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Friberg B, Jemt T, Lekholm U (1991) Early failures in 4,641 consecutively placed Brånemark dental implants: a study from stage 1 surgery to the connection of completed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 6

  9. Schwarz MS (2000) Mechanical complications of dental implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research: Chapter 10(11):156–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mumcu E (2018) Sigara Alışkanlığının İmplant Üstü Sabit Protezler Üzerine Etkileri: Retrospektif Çalışma. Osmangazi Tıp Dergisi 41:226–234

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bernard JP, Belser U, Martinet JP, Borgis S (1995) Osseointegration of Brånemark fixtures using a single-step operating technique. A preliminary prospective one-year study in the edentulous mandible. Clinical Oral Implants Research 6:122–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bryant SR, Zarb GA (2003) Crestal bone loss proximal to oral implants in older and younger adults. J Prosthet Dent 89:589–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. periimplant mucosal response (1991) Apse, P. The longitudinal effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants. The Toronto study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 11:95–111

    Google Scholar 

  14. Boerrigter E et al (1997) A controlled clinical trial of implant-retained mandibular overdentures: clinical aspects. J Oral Rehabil 24:182–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Akesson L, Håkansson J, Rohlin M, Zöger B (1993) An evaluation of image quality for the assessment of the marginal bone level in panoramic radiography A comparison of radiographs from different dental clinics. Swedish dental journal 17:9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Persson RE et al (2003) Comparison between panoramic and intra-oral radiographs for the assessment of alveolar bone levels in a periodontal maintenance population. J Clin Periodontol 30:833–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kullman L, Asfour AA, Zetterqvist L, Andersson L (2007) Comparison of radiographic bone height assessments in panoramic and intraoral radiographs of implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22

  18. Lian M, et al. (2019) Stud vs bar attachments for maxillary four-implant-supported overdentures: 3-to 9-year results from a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 34

  19. Trakas T, Michalakis K, Kang K, Hirayama H (2006) Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review. Implant Dent 15:24–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Baqain ZH, Moqbel WY, Sawair FA (2012) Early dental implant failure: risk factors. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50:239–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Liaw K, Delfini RH, Abrahams JJ (2015) Dental implant complications. In Sem. Ultrasound CT MRI, Vol. 36 427–433.

  22. Weber HP, Crohin CC, Fiorellini JP (2000) A 5-year prospective clinical and radiographic study of non-submerged dental implants. Clin Oral Implant Res 11:144–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tang Z et al (2000) Peri-implant mucosal inflammation and bone loss: clinical and radiographic evaluation of 108 dental implants after 1-year loading. The Chinese Journal of Dental Research: the Official Journal of the Scientific Section of the Chinese Stomatological Association (CSA) 3:15–20

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wyatt CC (1998) The effect of prosthodontic treatment on alveolar bone loss: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 80:362–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Donatsky O (1993) Osseointegrated dental implants with ball attachments supporting overdentures in patients with mandibular alveolar ridge atrophy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 8

  26. Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Van’t Hof MA, Visser A (2004) A controlled clinical trial of implant-retained mandibular overdentures: 10 years’ results of clinical aspects and aftercare of IMZ implants and Brånemark implants. Clin Oral Implant Res 15:421–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Chou C-T, Morris HF, Ochi S, Walker L, DesRosiers D (2004) AICRG, Part II: crestal bone loss associated with the Ankylos implant: loading to 36 months. Journal of Oral Implantology 30:134–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Seo Y-H et al (2016) Clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures via Locator implant attachment and Locator bar attachment. The journal of advanced prosthodontics 8:313–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Naert I, Gizani S, Vuylsteke M, Van Steenberghe D (1999) 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 26:195–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Park JH, Shin SW, Lee JY (2019) Bar versus ball attachments for maxillary four-implant retained overdentures: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implant Res 30:1076–1084

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ghahroudi AR et al (2010) Radiographic vertical bone loss evaluation around dental implants following one year of functional loading. Journal of Dentistry (Tehran, Iran) 7:89

    Google Scholar 

  32. Popovic M, Sordillo MR (2017) Immediately loaded, implant-supported overdentures retained by a milled bar: an up-to-5-year retrospective clinical study. Periodontics 37:e261–e269

    Google Scholar 

  33. Duong HY et al (2022) Oral health-related quality of life of patients rehabilitated with fixed and removable implant-supported dental prostheses. Periodontol 2000(88):201–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Degidi M, Nardi D, Piattelli A (2009) Immediate versus one-stage restoration of small-diameter implants for a single missing maxillary lateral incisor: A 3-year randomized clinical trial. J Periodontol 80:1393–1398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Prosper L, Crespi R, Valenti E, Capparé P, Gherlone E (2010) Five-year follow-up of wide-diameter implants placed in fresh molar extraction sockets in the mandible: immediate versus delayed loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25

  36. Degidi M, Piattelli A (2005) Comparative Analysis Study of 702 Dental Implants Subjected to Immediate Functional Loading and Immediate Nonfunctional Loading to Traditional Healing Periods with a Follow-up of up to 24 Months. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 20.

  37. Barış Güncü M, Aslan Y, Tümer C, Güncü GN, Uysal S (2008) In-patient comparison of immediate and conventional loaded implants in mandibular molar sites within 12 months. Clin Oral Implant Res 19:335–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Purton DG, Torr B, Payne AGT, Hall JAG (2006) A randomized controlled clinical trial of conventional and immediately loaded tapered implants with screw-retained crowns. Int J Prosthodont 19:17–19

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Galli F, Capelli M, Zuffetti F, Testori T, Esposito M (2008) Immediate non-occlusal vs. early loading of dental implants in partially edentulous patients: a multicentre randomized clinical trial. Peri-implant bone and soft-tissue levels. Clinical Oral Implants Research 19:546–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Payne, A.G. & Solomons, Y.F (2000) The prosthodontic maintenance requirements of mandibular mucosa-and implant-supported overdentures: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 13

  41. Michaud P-L, de Grandmont P, Feine JS, Emami E (2012) Measuring patient-based outcomes: is treatment satisfaction associated with oral health-related quality of life? J Dent 40:624–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara Medipol University, Hacı Bayram, Talatpaşa Blv. No: 2, 06050, Altındağ, Ankara, Turkey

    Sadeq Mohammed Taqi Fadhıl

  2. Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskisehir, Turkey

    Emre Mumcu

Authors
  1. Sadeq Mohammed Taqi Fadhıl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Emre Mumcu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sadeq Mohammed Taqi Fadhıl.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Eskişehir Osmangazi University non-interventional clinical study ethics committee (25403353–050.99-E.110578).

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fadhıl, S.M.T., Mumcu, E. Maintenance requirements and marginal bone loss associated with implant-retained overdentures: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Invest 26, 4735–4742 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04437-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04437-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation