Masticatory performance with mandibular implant-retained overdentures

It was investigated in a clinical trial whether the masticatory performance of complete-denture wearers depended on the support for their mandibular dentures by implants or mucosa. The trial involved the provision of a new maxillary denture and either a new conventional mandibular denture (mucosa-borne), a mandibular overdenture retained by two IMZ-implants (implant-mucosa-borne), or a mandibular overdenture on a transmandibular implant (TMI; mainly implant-borne). In comparison with mandibular implant-retained overdentures, subjects with conventional dentures needed 1.5 to 3.6 times more chewing strokes for an equivalent reduction in particle size. No differences in masticatory performance were found between subjects with IMZ-implants and those with TMI. This suggests that the increased stability of the mandibular denture with implants determines the wearer's masticatory performance, rather than the support by implants.     

Masticatory function with mandibular implant-supported overdentures fitted with different attachment types

Oral Rehabilitation by means of implant-retained mandibular overdentures is known to improve the oral function. The improvement may depend on the degree of retention and stability of the denture and thus on the type of attachment. In this within-patient cross-over clinical trial, we examined the hypothesis that more retention and stability of the overdenture improves the masticatory function. Eighteen patients received two permucosal implants, a new overdenture, and, successively, three different suprastructure modalities: a magnet, a ball, and a bar-clip attachment. We quantified aspects of the oral function by measuring the electromyographic activity of the jaw muscles and the jaw movement during chewing. The muscle activity was significantly lower for the unsupported new mandibular denture compared with values for the supported new denture. No significant differences in muscle activity were observed among the three attachment types. Furthermore, we did not observe significant differences in jaw muscle activity between the old unsupported denture and the new supported denture, despite significant differences in masticatory performance. Measuring muscle activity during chewing will thus not provide adequate information about masticatory function. Thus, subjects chewed more efficiently after implant treatment. No changes in cycle duration or in jaw movement parameters were observed among the various measurement moments.     

Computerised occlusal analysis of mini-dental implant-retained mandibular overdentures: A 1-year prospective clinical study

Occlusal analysis is a substantial tool for the functional improvement evaluation after using implant-retained overdenture comparing to complete denture without dental implant retaining. To evaluate occlusal pattern, chewing force distribution in mini-dental implant-retained mandibular overdentures by computerised occlusal analysis system and to compare patient satisfaction after 1-year function. Thirty-one patients wearing complete dentures were included in the study. Prior to mini-dental implant-retained treatment, all patients were assessed for occlusion and force distribution using computerised occlusal analysis system (T-Scan^®), and then, all patients received two mini-dental implant-retained mandibular overdentures. Mini-dental implants were immediately loaded using low vertical profile attachments (Equator^®). T-Scan^® was used to evaluate chewing force and force distribution at 1 day, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. The patient satisfactions before implant placement and after 1 year were evaluated using questionnaires which included satisfaction of denture quality, psychosocial behaviour and chewing efficiency modified from the validated questionnaires. Clinical evaluation of two mini-dental implant-retained mandibular overdentures showed 100% success rate after 1 year. T-Scan^® demonstrated that maximum occlusal contact force increased continuously. The force distribution; the tooth contact number increased over the period. At 1-year follow-up, overall patient satisfaction was significantly greater than before receiving mini-dental implant treatment (P < .001). Using computerised occlusal analysis, mini-dental implants improve complete denture function significantly in terms of maximum occlusal contact force, tooth contact number without the impairment of force distribution. The oral function of the patients has been enhanced.     

Maxillary anterior and mandibular posterior residual ridge resorption in patients wearing a mandibular implant-retained overdenture

The mandibular implant-retained overdenture could improve masticatory function compared to the conventional complete denture. However, increased forces exerted by the overdenture could increase residual ridge resorption of the maxillary anterior and mandibular posterior areas. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of the mandibular implant-retained overdenture using two or four dental implants, or the conventional complete denture on resorption of the residual ridge of the maxillary anterior and mandibular posterior areas over a period of 10 years. In total, 120 patients, 30 patients treated with an overdenture on two implants (two-implant group), 30 patients with an overdenture on four implants (four-implant group) and 60 patients treated with a conventional full denture (conventional group), participated in this study. On panoramic radiographs, made before and 10 years after treatment, proportional area measurements were applied to determine changes in bone height. After 10 years, a statistically significant amount of bone resorption had occurred in the anterior maxilla in the two-implant group and in the four-implant group. A significant amount of bone resorption had occurred in the posterior mandible in all three groups. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in both areas. Patients presented large individual differences. It is concluded that patients rehabilitated with implant-retained mandibular overdentures are not subjected to more residual ridge resorption in the anterior maxilla when compared to patients wearing a conventional full denture. Regarding the mandibular posterior residual ridge, resorption was irrespective of wearing an implant-retained mandibular overdenture or a conventional mandibular denture.     

A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures in diabetic patients. Part II. Comparisons of masticatory performance

Statement of problem. Convincing evidence is lacking to demonstrate the functional superiority of mandibular implant-supported overdentures over conventional dentures.Purpose. This randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare masticatory functional effectiveness of mandibular implant-supported overdentures and conventional dentures in diabetic denture wearers with clinically acceptable metabolic control.Methods. A total of 102 edentulous diabetic patients, treated with or without insulin, were randomized to receive a new maxillary and either a mandibular conventional denture or an implant-supported overdenture. Treatment was completed in 89 patients, 37 with conventional dentures and 52 with Hader bar-clip attachment overdentures supported by two IMZ implants. Besides data from medical and dental histories, oromaxillofacial examinations, and questionnaires, masticatory tests were performed by patients before and at 6 and 24 months after treatment completion. Although 78 patients (28 in the conventional, 50 in the overdenture group) performed tests at 6 months after treatment, 68 (25 in the conventional, 43 in the overdenture) had performance data for both entry and 6-month posttreatment intervals.Results. The two treatment groups were highly comparable in terms of general characteristics, quality of original dentures, tissue support, and past denture experience. No significant differences were found between patients treated for diabetes with or without insulin. All four masticatory performance scores with original dentures were higher in the conventional denture group than the overdenture group. The posttreatment performance scores for the two treatment groups became similar because of the higher gains in the overdenture group. Patients with low initial performance scores showed greater posttreatment gains with both conventional dentures and overdentures.Conclusions. The implant-supported overdenture showed no significant advantage over the conventional denture for improving the ability to comminute food in this group of diabetic patients with higher than average initial functional levels observed for other groups of denture wearers in previous studies. (J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:632-40.)     

Masticatory function with implant-supported overdentures

The type of attachment that is used in implant-supported mandibular overdentures may influence the retention and stability of the prosthesis and, thus, masticatory function. In this within-subject cross-over clinical trial, we examined the hypothesis that greater retention and stability of the overdenture improve the masticatory function. Eighteen edentulous subjects received 2 oral implants, a new overdenture, and, successively, 3 different suprastructure modalities: magnet, ball, and bar-clip. Masticatory performance, masticatory efficiency, and swallowing threshold were measured. The masticatory function significantly improved after implant treatment with each of the 3 attachments. We observed small differences in masticatory function among the 3 attachment types: slightly better masticatory performance with ball and bar-clip than with magnet attachments. The number of chewing cycles until swallowing hardly decreased after implant treatment. We conclude that significantly better masticatory performance, combined with a slightly smaller number of chewing cycles after implant treatment, results in smaller food particles being swallowed.     

Changes in the edentulous maxilla in persons wearing implant-retained mandibular overdentures

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: It has been suggested that risk for severe resorption in the anterior maxilla is increased in persons wearing mandibular implant-retained overdentures. However, little information is available about the changes in the edentulous maxilla after mandibular implant treatment. PURPOSE: This study determined the possible changes in the width of the maxillary residual ridge 6 years after receiving mandibular implant-supported or implant-mucosa-supported overdentures and evaluated the association between the anatomic changes and subjective complaints with maxillary complete dentures. METHODS AND MATERIAL: The subjects for this study (n = 55), enrolled among the participants of a prospective clinical trial, were randomly assigned into 3 groups treated with: (a) implant-supported overdentures on a transmandibular implant system (n = 21); (b) implant-mucosa-supported overdentures on 2 IMZ implants (n = 20); or (c) conventional complete dentures (n = 14). A lingual contact occlusion concept with anterior open bite was used for tooth arrangement in all subjects. Diagnostic casts were made at baseline, and again at the 6-year follow-up. Most prominent points perpendicular to the crest of residual ridge were located in the incisor, canine, and premolar regions, after which the width of the ridge was recorded at these points with a Boley gage. Subjects' opinions on their dentures were evaluated with a questionnaire. RESULTS: Significant reduction in the width of the ridge was found in all measurement areas (mean difference = 0.4 to 0.6 mm; P <.0001). However, changes were small and not associated with the type of prosthetic restoration in the mandible. In subjects with implant-mucosa-supported overdentures, complaint of loose maxillary denture correlated with the decrement of residual ridge width. CONCLUSION: The width of residual ridge decreases with time, despite the type of mandibular prosthetic restoration.     

A randomized controlled trial of implant-retained mandibular overdentures

Evidence from randomized clinical trials of implant-retained overdentures is very limited at the present time. The aim of this study was to compare implant-retained mandibular overdentures and conventional complete dentures in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Our a priori hypothesis was that implant-retained mandibular overdentures would be significantly better than conventional complete dentures. Edentulous patients (n = 118) were randomly allocated to either an Implant Group (n = 62) or a Denture Group (n = 56). Patients completed the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) and a denture satisfaction scale pre-treatment and three months post-treatment. Upon completion of treatment, both groups reported improvement (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon Ranks Sum test) in oral-health-related quality of life and denture satisfaction. There were no significant post-treatment differences between the groups, but a treatment effect may be masked by application of "intention to treat" analysis. The OHIP change scores were significantly greater for patients receiving implants than for those who refused them.     

Two-center clinical trial of implant–retained mandibular overdentures versus complete dentures – chewing ability

Abstract This study is a two-center clinical trial with the aim to assess the treatment effects of implant-retained mandibular overdentures versus conventional complete dentures. Treatment had been assigned according to a balanced allocation method. The following criteria were used to enhance the comparability of the treatment groups: age, gender, the edentulous period of the mandible, the number of previously made mandibular dentures, the number of years having worn the present mandibular denture and the symphyseal bone height. 151 patients with severely resorbed mandibles participated in the study, they were treated at two centers. Ninety-one patients received an implant-retained mandibular overdenture (IRO) and 60 patients a conventional complete denture (CD). Since some patients refused the allocated treatment the “Intention To Treat” principle was applied. This implies that patients are evaluated in the originally allocated treatment group regardless of the actual treatment they received. Patient's experiences were evaluated before treatment and I yr after insertion of the new dentures. Results before treatment showed that both treatment groups were comparable: they were dissatisfied with their mandibular denture and they could hardly chew tough or hard foods. One year after insertion of the new dentures the IRO-group was satisfied with their mandibular denture, whereas only one third of the CD-group was satisfied. With respect to the chewing ability the IRO-group scored significantly better than the CD-group (P0.0001).     

Implant overdentures: recommendations and analysis of the clinical benefits

Due to the progress made in implantology, in recent years the interest in prosthetic rehabilitation in edentulous mouths using overdentures has increased considerably. Indications to the treatment of implant supported overdenture could be classified in three groups: the first group consists of younger members of the elderly population who have an edentulous upper jaw rehabilitated with a conventional complete denture but experience discomfort with it and therefore desire a stable prosthesis and greater comfort in the mouth; the second group, for which the use of implant overdentures is recommended, consists of older patients who require greater stability from a complete mandibular denture; the third group consists of compromised patients and those with acquired or congenital maxillofacial conditions. Moreover, advantages of overdentures supported by implants are analyzed; in fact, they allow a lower bone reabsorption, a better retention and stability of the prosthesis than the traditional complete denture, an increased masticatory effectiveness, a reduction of pain during mastication tanks to the higher stability, a better sensory perception, a considerable patient satisfaction, and the option of making an immediate prosthetic rehabilitation with implants through immediate load.     

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of implant-retained mandibular overdentures with immediate loading

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare immediate-loaded implant-retained mandibular overdentures and delayed-loaded implant-retained mandibular overdentures. MATERIALS: Ten completely edentulous male patients received 40 dental implants. Patients were randomly divided into 2 equal groups, 5 patients each. Patients of both groups received conventional maxillary complete denture and had stage 1 surgery for placing 4 dental implant fixtures, 2 on each side anterior to the mental foramina. Group A: One-stage surgical procedure and immediate loading. Patients in this group received mandibular bar-retained overdenture supported by 4 endosseous implants loaded immediately after implant placement. Group B: The original 2-stage concept and delayed loading. Patients in this group received mandibular bar-retained overdenture supported by 4 endosseous implants that remained submerged for a period of 4 months before loading. The patients were evaluated clinically and radiographically immediately after overdenture delivery and after 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and 24 months. RESULTS: The results of clinical evaluation showed no statistical significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the effect of treatment. The radiographic assessment showed no statistical significant difference in mesial and distal alveolar bone loss at the different intervals of the follow-up period, except at the 12-month period, where immediately loaded implants showed a decrease in the amount of alveolar bone loss mesially and distally compared to delayed loaded implants. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that immediate-loaded implants provide promising results compared to delayed-loaded implants and can be a possible alternative procedure in implant dentistry.     

Transmandibular implant versus intramobile cylinder implants: a randomized, prospective clinical trial

A randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted to compare two different implant treatment modalities for edentulous patients with severely resorbed mandibles. In one modality (the IMZ^® group), two intramobile cylinder implants were placed, connected by a Dolder bar and provided with an overdenture, and in the other (the TMI group), a transmandibular implant with a triple bar and cantilever extensions was placed, likewise provided with an overdenture. The conditions of the overdentures, the peri-implant tissues, and the implants were evaluated. Orthopantomograms were taken for radiologic evaluation. An overal complication scale which took account of all aspects was devised to compare the results. The follow-up period was 2–4 years, with a mean follow-up of 3 years. The condition of dentures and oral hygiene aspects were comparable for both groups. The complication rate in the TMI group was significantly higher than that in the IMZ group. The scores on the complication scale resulted in a significant difference between the TMI and the IMZ groups (Wilcoxon, P=0.0044).     

Implant-retained mandibular overdentures: 6-year results of a multicenter clinical trial on 3 different implant systems.

PURPOSE: The goal of this multicenter prospective clinical trial was to compare clinical outcome and post-treatment care and patient satisfaction with different implant systems used for mandibular overdenture treatment during a 6-year follow-up period. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 87 edentulous patients with a severely resorbed mandible (bone height, 8 to 15 mm) received treatment involving either 2 Intra Mobiele Zylinder implants (IMZ group, n = 41) (Friedrichsfeld AG, Mannheim, Germany), 2 Br?nemark implants (Br? group, n = 17) (Nobel Biocare AB, Gothenburg, Sweden) or a Transmandibular Implant (TMI; Krijnen Medical, Beesd, The Netherlands) (TMI group, n = 29). The evaluation involved clinical parameters, radiographs, surgical and prosthetic post-treatment care, clinical implant performance (CIP scale), and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: After 6 years, there was a significant difference in the mean plaque index:the mean plaque index of the TMI group was significantly higher than that of the IMZ and Br? groups. Other clinical parameters showed no significant differences. The implant survival rate of 97.5% was noted in the IMZ group, 97.1% in the Br? group, and 72.0% in the TMI group. The CIP scale were significantly worse for the TMI group. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that the IMZ and the Br?nemark implant systems have a better survival rate and clinical implant performance than the TMI system. Based on these data, these systems should be the choice for the edentulous mandible with a height between 8 and 15 mm.     

Implant-retained mandibular overdentures versus conventional dentures: 10 years of care and aftercare

PURPOSE: This 10-year prospective, randomized, clinical trial investigated the treatment outcome of edentulous patients treated with mandibular overdentures retained by 2 endosseous implants compared with conventional dentures in patients with or without vestibuloplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty-one edentulous patients (5 groups) with a symphyseal mandibular bone height between 8 and 25 mm participated. Sixty-two patients were treated with an overdenture retained by 2 implants (groups 1 and 3), 59 patients were treated with a conventional denture (groups 2 and 5), and 30 patients were treated with a conventional denture after preprosthetic vestibuloplasty (group 4). Patients who received conventional dentures but preferred implants later on could undergo implant surgery after 1 year of their initial treatment, but were analyzed in their original group. The prosthetic and surgical care and aftercare were scored during a 10-year evaluation period. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-three patients completed the 10-year follow-up evaluations. Forty-four percent of patients treated with conventional dentures switched within 10 years to implant-retained overdentures, versus 16% of the patients who were treated with conventional dentures after vestibuloplasty. On average, a greater time investment and more treatment sessions were needed in patients treated with implant-retained overdentures compared to patients treated with conventional dentures. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with an implant-retained overdenture need more treatment interventions and treatment time than patients treated with conventional dentures.     

An economic evaluation of implant treatment in edentulous patients-preliminary results

PURPOSE: Edentulous patients with denture problems benefit from implant treatment with overdenture prostheses. The aim of this prospective study was to investigate a method of analyzing cost effectiveness in dentistry. As an example, overdenture treatment with two or four implants was compared to the conventional complete denture (CD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a self-selected trial, 20 patients each were treated with implant-retained overdentures (two implants, IRET), implant-supported overdentures (four implants, ISUP), or CDs (control group) in the edentulous mandible. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the patient's perspective, with a time horizon of 6 months. Direct health-care costs were calculated in Swiss Francs (in 2000), and effects were defined as improvements in perceived chewing ability compared with the baseline value before treatment (measured on a VAS). Point estimates for mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were complemented with cost-effectiveness acceptability curves to account for uncertainties associated with costs and effects. RESULTS: Mean incremental costs were CHF 4,329 (IRET-CD), CHF 13,360 (ISUP-CD), and CHF 9,031 (ISUP-IRET); these cost differences were all statistically significant. The mean incremental effects at 6 months were 19% (IRET-CD), 23% (ISUP-CD), and 4% (ISUP-IRET). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were CHF 228 (IRET-CD), CHF 581 (ISUP-CD), and CHF 2,258 (IRET-ISUP) per percentage increase in chewing ability. CONCLUSION: From an economic point of view, IRETs were more attractive than ISUPs. The latter were associated with a statistically significant improvement in perceived chewing ability compared to CDs, but at substantially higher costs.     

Swallowing thresholds of mandibular implant-retained overdentures with variable portion sizes

We analysed the effect of three portion sizes Optocal Plus (small, medium and large) on swallowing thresholds in subjects with either conventional complete dentures or mandibular implant-retained overdentures (transmandibular and permucosal cylindric implants). Tests were carried out in 52 women and 15 men (mean age 59 years) 4 years after treatment in a randomised controlled clinical trial. The results indicated that the degree of mucosal support for the mandibular denture did not affect the number of chewing strokes, time till swallowing or swallowed particle size. Only the chewing rate differed: subjects wearing mandibular implant-retained overdentures chewed the food at a higher rate than complete-denture wearers. With larger portion sizes, subjects needed significantly more chewing strokes and time until swallowing and they would have swallowed larger particles. Men chewed their food more efficiently than women, as they used the same number of chewing strokes and time, but achieved a greater particle size reduction at the swallowing moment.     

种植体支持球帽附着体固位下颌覆盖总义齿的临床应用

目的：探讨球帽附着体固位的下颌种植覆盖总义齿的临床效果。方法：随机选择18例下颌牙列缺失的患者,植入2颗种植体,利用球帽附着体固位制作的覆盖义齿,随访6个月—4年,从患者主观感受和X射线检查两方面观察修复效果。结果：覆盖义齿的美观、舒适、固位稳定性好,咀嚼效率高。结论：种植体支持球帽附着体固位的下颌覆盖义齿修复下颌牙列缺失患者临床效果好。     

总义齿、覆盖义齿和种植覆盖义齿修复后咀嚼效率和下颌运动型的比较

目的　比较总义齿 (completedenture ,CD )、覆盖义齿 (completeoverdenture ,COD )和种植覆盖义齿 (implant supportedoverdenture ,IOD)修复后患者的咀嚼效率和下颌运动轨迹的差异。 方法　分别选取CD、COD和IOD修复后患者各 14名 ,在义齿正常戴用半年后测量患者的咀嚼效率和下颌运动轨迹。对下颌运动轨迹从规则程度、末端集中性、额状面的分型和咀嚼运动中的接触滑动4个方面进行评价 ,测试用食物为杏仁和小枣。结果　IOD组患者咀嚼枣和杏仁的效率均显著高于CD组 (P <0 0 1) ;COD组患者咀嚼杏仁的效率显著高于CD组 (P <0 0 1)。COD组患者咀嚼枣的效率高于CD组 ,且IOD组患者咀嚼枣和杏仁的效率高于COD组 ,但其间差异无显著性。IOD组患者下颌运动轨迹的规则程度显著优于CD组 (P <0 0 5 ) ,末端轨迹集中性也显著优于CD组 (P <0 0 1)。结论　IOD和COD修复有利于提高无牙颌患者或口内只保留个别残根患者的咀嚼效率。IOD修复患者较CD修复患者具有更加规则的下颌运动型。     

A within-subject comparison of mandibular long-bar and hybrid implant-supported prostheses: evaluation of masticatory function.

Sixteen edentulous subjects participated in a within-subject crossover clinical trial to test the hypotheses that a long-bar overdenture attached to 4 implants gives greater patient satisfaction and masticatory efficiency than a two-implant hybrid overdenture. All subjects were given a new maxillary conventional denture. Ten received mandibular long-bar overdentures first and six the hybrid overdentures. Two months later, psychometric assessments and functional tests were repeated 3 times at one-week intervals. The mandibular prosthesis was then changed, and recordings were repeated after another 2 months. Mandibular movements and electromyographic activity of jaw muscles were recorded while subjects chewed standard-sized pieces of 5 foods: bread, cheese, apple, sausage, and carrot. Measurements included masticatory time, cleaning time (the time between the end of mastication and the last swallow), and duration and amplitude of masticatory cycles and phases. Multilevel analyses were performed. No significant differences in masticatory time were found between prostheses for any test food. However, cleaning time for carrot [estimated mean of difference (delta) +/- SE: 1.6 sec +/- 0.7] and bread (delta = 1.0 sec +/- 0.4) was slightly but significantly longer for subjects wearing long-bar overdentures. Cycle duration was longer with the long-bar overdenture only for subjects chewing carrot. The opening phase was shorter and the closing phase longer with the long-bar overdenture for almost all test foods. Vertical amplitude was significantly less with the long-bar overdenture for cheese (delta = -2.6 mm +/- 1.1), apple (delta = -2.6 mm +/- 1.0), and sausage (delta = -2.9 mm +/- 1.3). These results suggest that mastication with the 2 prostheses is equally efficient, although clearance of some foods from the mouth is longer with the long-bar overdentures. They also indicate that patients adapt their masticatory movements to the characteristics of different prostheses.     

Mandibular overdentures supported by two Brånemark, IMZ or ITI implants. A prospective comparative preliminary study: One‐year results.

The aim of this prospective comparative study was to evaluate the condition of the peri‐implant tissues of three different implant systems supporting a mandibular overdenture. Ninety edentulous patients (Cawood class V–VI) participated in this study. After randomization, 30 patients were treated with 2 Brånemark implants, 30 patients with 2 IMZ implants and 30 patients with 2 ITI implants. The implants were inserted in the canine region of the mandible. After 3 months overdentures were fabricated supported by a round bar and clip attachment. A standardized clinical and radiographic evaluation was performed 0,6 and 12 months after insertion of the denture. The intra‐oral radiographs were made, using the long‐cone technique with an aiming device. Two implants were lost (1 Brånemark, 1 IMZ) during the healing period. None of the patients showed any sensory change in lip or chin region. The pocket depth in the Brinemark group decreased significantly whereas the mucosa recession increased significantly in both the Brånemark as well as in the IMZ group. After 12 months, there was significantly less bone loss in the ITI group. From our study it was concluded that 2 (Brånemark, IMZ or ITI) implants placed in the interforaminal region connected with a bar supply a proper base for the support of a mandibular overdenture in the (Cawood V–VI) edentulous patient. The ITI implant appears to be the implant of choice for mandibular overdenture therapy. because only one operation is required for a comparable result.