The implant-supported overdenture as an alternative to the complete mandibular denture

BACKGROUND: Approximately one-third of Americans older than 65 years of age are fully edentulous, requiring replacement of missing teeth. While the conventional denture may meet the needs of many patients, others require more retention, stability, function and esthetics, especially in the mandible. The implant-supported prosthesis is an alternative to the conventional removable denture. METHODS: This article describes the strengths of the implant-supported mandibular overdenture. The authors also outline the risks of this approach. They performed a review of recent literature to summarize the reported success rate of implants used to support a mandibular overdenture. RESULTS: The literature review indicates that implants placed in the anterior mandible (anterior to the foramen) have a success rate better than 95 percent. Patients have reported a high degree of satisfaction with the implant-supported overdenture. CONCLUSIONS: The literature indicates that implant-supported overdentures in the mandible provide predictable results with improved stability, retention, function and patient satisfaction compared with conventional dentures. Implants placed in the anterior mandible have a success rate equal to or greater than 95 percent. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: When planning treatment for patients with edentulous mandibles, clinicians should consider the implant-supported prosthesis.     

Simplified Technique for Incorporating a Metal Mesh into Record Bases for Mandibular Implant Overdentures

Mandibular implant‐retained overdentures have become the standard of care for patients with mandibular complete edentulism. As part of the treatment, the mandibular implant‐retained overdenture may require a metal mesh framework to be incorporated to strengthen the denture and avoid fracture of the prosthesis. Integrating the metal mesh framework as part of the acrylic record base and wax occlusion rim before the jaw relation procedure will avoid the distortion of the record base and will minimize the chances of processing errors. A simplified method to incorporate the mesh into the record base and occlusion rim is presented in this technique article.     

Favoring trauma as an etiological factor in denture stomatitis

The etiology of denture stomatitis remains controversial. Trauma due to unstable dentures has been suggested as an etiological factor. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that the prevalence of denture stomatitis is reduced when mandibular dentures are stabilized by implants. Data were collected at a one-year follow-up from 173 edentulous elders who had randomly received mandibular implant overdentures or conventional dentures. The diagnosis of denture stomatitis was determined according to the Newton classification. Elders wearing conventional dentures were almost 5 times more likely to have denture stomatitis than those wearing mandibular two-implant overdentures (P < 0.0001, Fisher's exact test). Adjusted odds ratios showed that only the type of the prosthesis (AOR = 4.54, 95% CI 2.20 to 9.40) and nocturnal wear (AOR = 3.03, 95% CI 1.24 to 7.40) predict the frequency of denture stomatitis. Thus, implant overdentures may reduce oral mucosal trauma and control denture stomatitis.     

Within-subject comparison of maxillary long-bar implant-retained prostheses with and without palatal coverage: patient-based outcomes

Although maxillary implant overdentures are used in oral rehabilitation, different designs have not been compared previously in clinical trials. This crossover trial was designed to measure differences in patient satisfaction with maxillary long-bar implant overdentures with and without palatal coverage opposed by a fixed mandibular implant-supported prosthesis. Data were also gathered on new conventional dentures and on maxillary conventional dentures opposed by mandibular fixed prostheses. Sixteen participants were selected from a population wearing conventional dentures. Fifteen received new upper and lower dentures (1 drop-out). Four implants were placed in the maxilla and mandible (2 drop-outs). A mandibular fixed prosthesis was inserted in 13 participants, who were then divided into 2 groups. One group (n = 7) received long-bar overdentures with palate, then long-bar overdentures without palate. The other group (n = 6) received the same treatments in the reverse order. Mastication tests and psychometric evaluations using Visual Analog Scales and Categorical Scales were performed throughout the study. General satisfaction was very high with both maxillary implant-supported prostheses, as were ratings of almost all psychosocial and functional variables. There were no significant differences between treatments, suggesting that patients are equally satisfied with long-bar overdentures with and without palate when these are opposed by mandibular fixed prostheses. However, the ratings given to the maxillary implant prostheses were not significantly higher than for new conventional maxillary prostheses. This suggests that maxillary implant prostheses should not be considered as a general treatment of choice in patients with good bony support for maxillary conventional prostheses.     

Comparisons of chewing difficulty of consumed foods with mandibular conventional dentures and implant-supported overdentures in diabetic denture wearers

PURPOSE: This study compared the chewing difficulty of foods in diets of denture wearers with mandibular conventional and implant-supported overdentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-week dietary logs were evaluated for 58 subjects with controlled diabetes at baseline with their original dentures and with new dentures 6 months after treatment completion. Subjects received new maxillary and mandibular complete dentures, 21 with mandibular conventional dentures and 37 with implant-supported overdentures. A 10-point chewing difficulty rating scale (10 for most difficult-to-chew foods) was used to rate food items in the dietary logs. RESULTS: ANOVA showed no differences between the chewing difficulty mean scores for all foods consumed either at baseline or posttreatment for the two groups. However, the mean scores for the combined consumption frequency of difficult-to-chew foods (6 to 10) showed a significant decrease following treatment with both types of dentures. This decline did not differ significantly between the denture types. With original dentures, more than 91% of subjects consumed foods with chewing difficulty scores of 6 to 10 at least seven times per week. With study dentures, only 21% maintained this level of consumption, with the frequency decreasing to four to six times per week in 24% and one to three times per week in 43% of subjects. The declines in consumption frequency of more difficult to chew foods with study dentures were in a higher percentage of subjects in the implant than in the conventional group. CONCLUSION: After 7 months of adaptation to new dentures, patients consumed fewer difficult-to-chew foods than with their original dentures. This decline was more frequent with mandibular implant-supported overdentures than with conventional dentures. Dietary counseling should be considered as part of implant and complete denture therapy.     

Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare elderly patients' satisfaction and oral health-related quality of life with mandibular two-implant overdentures and conventional dentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty edentulous subjects aged 65 to 75 years were randomly assigned to two groups treated with maxillary conventional dentures and either a mandibular conventional denture (n = 30) or an overdenture supported by two implants with ball retainers (n = 30). Subjects rated their general satisfaction, as well as other features of their dentures (comfort, stability, ability to chew, speech, esthetics, and cleaning ability), prior to treatment and 2 months postdelivery. Changes in ratings on the original Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) and its short form (OHIP-EDENT) were also used as indicators of oral health-related quality of life. RESULTS: The primary outcome of this study, ratings of general satisfaction 2 months postdelivery, was significantly better in the group treated with mandibular two-implant overdentures (P = .001). In addition, the implant group gave significantly higher ratings on comfort, stability, and ability to chew. Furthermore, using OHIP-EDENT, subjects who received mandibular two-implant overdentures had significantly fewer oral health-related quality of life problems than did the conventional group. CONCLUSION: These short-term results suggest that mandibular two-implant overdentures combined with maxillary conventional dentures provide better function and oral health-related quality of life than conventional dentures.     

Attachment of clips in a bar-retained maxillary implant overdenture: a clinical report

Implant-supported overdentures are a good alternative for patients with conventional dentures that lack retention and stability. The most common prosthetic complications in mandibular and maxillary implant-supported overdentures are fracture and loosening of the attachment system. This clinical report describes the treatment of a completely edentulous patient with sinus floor elevation by using bone from the iliac crest and the insertion of 4 implants in the maxilla and mandible followed by implant-supported overdentures. The technical procedure for the attachment of clips to an acrylic resin overdenture base with the use of metal reinforcement is described. The advantage of this attachment procedure is an improved attachment system with less fracture and less loosening of the clips.     

Two-implant mandibular overdentures: simple to fabricate and easy to wear

Success rates for titanium dental implants in the anterior mandible are very high. Because of these success rates, as well as lower costs, it is common to treat edentulous patients with just 2 implants and ball anchors for retention of the overdenture, instead of 4 implants and a bar. In this paper the fabrication of 2-implant overdentures is described. In a controlled clinical trial (to be reported elsewhere), 30 subjects received a 2-implant overdenture for the mandible and a conventional prosthesis for the maxilla. The 30 control patients received conventional complete dentures for both jaws. The stability of the overdentures was excellent, and the lingual dimensions of the denture could be reduced to the level of the mylohyoid line to provide more space for the tongue. In patients with tense labial musculature or a limited amount of attached gingiva, it was important to elevate the shoulder of the implant and ball abutment above the gingival level to avoid peri-implant problems. Significantly fewer visits for adjustment related to post-placement pressure spots were required for mandibular overdentures than for conventional mandibular prostheses.     

Spark erosion implant-supported overdentures: clinical and laboratory techniques.

Overdentures can be utilized effectively in treatment plans involving implants. Usually soft tissue support is necessary, which requires a conventional denture base. Implant-supported overdentures do not require conventional denture base extension unless necessitated by functional or esthetic considerations. With fixed-detachable hybrid dentures, flanges can often interfere with home care procedures. Spark erosion overdentures meet the requirements for esthetics, phonetics, retention, and support and also allow accessibility for proper patient oral hygiene. This article reviews the advantages and disadvantages of the spark erosion overdenture and provides guidelines for the fabrication of this type of prosthesis.     

Does the retention system influence the stability of implant-supported maxillary overdentures? A comparison with fixed and conventional dentures

Purpose

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the stability of removable implant-supported maxillary overdentures with fixed complete dentures and conventional dentures.

Three-year clinical outcome of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures--results of preliminary prospective study

Objectives

The aim of this preliminary prospective study was to evaluate the clinical outcome, the oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), and the subjective chewing ability of patients with mandibular complete dentures retained by a single implant placed in the mandible midline.

Methods

Patients wearing complete dentures were treated with a single implant in the mandible, followed by relining of the dentures and incorporation of ball attachments for implant retention. Implant outcome, prosthodontic maintenance, subjective chewing ability, and the oral health impact profile of the patients were assessed at baseline and at four weeks after connecting the denture and implant.

Results

Eleven patients were enrolled in this investigation, and the mean observation period was 43.4 months (minimum period: 35, maximum period: 52 months). No implants were lost during observation period, but four dentures needed repair because of the fracture of the denture base in the midline area. A significant improvement was observed in the OHRQoL of the patients after the attachment of the mandibular dentures with a single midline implant. Furthermore, the subjective chewing ability of the patients was significantly improved after implant connection.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this preliminary prospective clinical study, single implant-supported mandibular overdentures were a successful treatment option for older edentulous patients who showed improvements in their OHRQoL and chewing ability.     

Replacement of a mandibular implant-fixed prosthesis with an implant-supported overdenture to improve maintenance and care

PatientsA 69-year-old woman presented to the Osaka University Dental Hospital. She had two chief complaints, (a) food accumulation under the lower teeth and (b) poor maxillary denture retention while eating. On clinical examination the patient presented with a maxillary complete denture and fixed mandibular implant prosthesis. For preventing food accumulation under the fixed implant prosthesis and to keep the maxillary denture stable by providing posterior occlusal contact for bilaterally balanced occlusion, the use of a mandibular implant-supported overdenture with self-adjusting magnetic attachments provided a prosthetic solution for this patient. After provided the new dentures, the patient was pleased and was comfortable with the aesthetic, stability and retention of the dentures. There were no discernable clinical or radiographic changes after 1 year of use.DiscussionTo prevent food accumulation beneath the fixed implant prosthesis and maintain the stability of the maxillary denture by providing posterior occlusal contact for bilaterally balanced occlusion, a mandibular implant-retained overdenture with magnetic attachments was used to provide a prosthetic solution for this patient.ConclusionIn this clinical case, an implant-fixed prosthesis in the edentulous mandibular region was replaced into an implant-supported overdenture with considerations for (a) preventing the food accumulation beneath the lower prosthesis, (b) achieving the proper occlusion in the posterior part for maxillary denture stability and (c) ease of maintenance and care for the prostheses.     

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.)     

Effectiveness of maxillary overdentures supported by implants: maintenance and prosthetic complications

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prosthetic complications with implant-supported overdentures in the maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-one patients (mean age 61 years) were consecutively admitted for treatment from 1991 to 1998. A total of 173 ITI implants were placed. Four to six implants either connected with a bar (34 overdentures) or with single anchors (seven overdentures) supported the denture, and only a few parties had fewer than four implants. The overdentures had a horseshoe design and were reinforced by a cast-metal framework. The mean observation time was 3.2 years. Oral hygiene and periimplant parameters were regularly assessed, and records were kept of prosthetic maintenance service. All prosthetic complications encountered were classified related to (1) implant components and anchorage devices, (2) mechanical and structural failures of dentures, or (3) denture-related adjustments. RESULTS: Three implants did not osseointegrate, and five implants were lost after loading. Thus, the overall survival rate of the implants was 95.5%. Altogether, 85 prosthetic complications were encountered. The most frequent finding was retightening of the bar screw and adjustments of the bar retainers. Repair of dentures was not frequent and was mostly related to broken teeth. No fracture of dentures was observed. Renewal of dentures occurred twice, once after loss of all implants in one patient. Thirty-nine overdentures had been continuously worn; thus, the overall denture stability was 95%. Mucosal irritation and need for occlusal adjustment were the most frequent findings in the first year. Over time, a decrease of complications was observed. CONCLUSION: Planned maxillary overdentures supported by implants are a successful treatment modality on a short-term basis.     

A Novel Extended Range Attachment System to Retain Implant Overdentures: A Clinical Report

Various attachment systems have been used to facilitate the retention, stability, and support of overdentures. The low profile design, pivoting technology, and durability of the Locator attachment made it one of the commonly used tissue‐supported implant‐retained overdentures. It has been successfully used to retain overdentures as well as partial dentures. This article describes the uses of the new Locator R‐Tx abutment and illustrates both the direct and indirect techniques used to process the denture attachment housing into the prosthesis to retain overdentures and partial dentures.     

Maintenance requirements of implant-supported fixed prostheses opposed by implant-supported fixed prostheses, natural teeth, or complete dentures: a 5-year retrospective study

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the maintenance requirements of implant-supported fixed prostheses with cantilever arms in edentulous jaws when opposed by fixed prostheses of similar design, by natural teeth, or by complete dentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The maintenance requirements for the 5-year follow-up period were obtained by examining the dental records of 37 people. Six were provided with fixed prostheses in both arches, 22 with a fixed prosthesis in the mandible opposed by a complete denture, and 9 with a fixed prosthesis opposed by natural teeth. Everyone was treated with Nobel Biocare implants using standard implant and prosthetic protocols. RESULTS: The denture teeth and acrylic resin were repaired on 44 occasions in the group with implants in both jaws, on 14 occasions in the group with implants opposed by natural teeth, and twice in the group in which the implants were opposed by a complete denture. The group with implants in both jaws was more likely to fracture the gold-alloy framework, which occurred on six occasions. The group with implants in both jaws was significantly different from the other two groups in relation to higher incidence of fracture of the teeth and gold-alloy framework. CONCLUSION: The maintenance requirements of implant-supported fixed prostheses with cantilever arms opposed by fixed prostheses of similar design were much greater than when opposed by natural teeth or complete dentures.     

An implant-supported overdenture in an edentulous upper jaw

An implant-supported overdenture is a good alternative treatment to a conventional denture for patients with complaints about the retention and stability of their removable complete denture. These complaints more often have to do with the mandibular than the maxillary denture. Implant-supported overdentures offer better results in the mandible than in the maxilla. In cases of insujficient bone volume in the maxilla for inserting implants, maxillary sinus floor elevation using an autogenous bone graft from the oral cavity or the iliac crest may be carried out. Treatment of the edentulous maxilla by inserting 6 implants followed by manufacturing a bar-clip mesostructure and an implant-supported overdenture is the most successful, followed closely by the treatment option of inserting 4 implants and fabricating a similar mesostructure and overdenture. Aftercare by routine preventive examinations is required.     

Oral and general health-related quality of life with conventional and implant dentures

Implant overdentures and conventional prostheses have been compared in several trials using a variety of functional and oral health-related quality of life (OHQOL) outcomes. In this paper, we describe the impact of implant overdentures on general and OHQOL in seniors. OBJECTIVES: To compare the oral health-related and general quality of life of seniors (aged 65-75 years) who received either mandibular implant overdentures or conventional dentures. METHODS: Sixty edentulous patients were recruited. Thirty received mandibular overdentures retained by two implants (IOD) and a conventional maxillary denture, the other 30 subjects received new maxillary and mandibular conventional complete dentures (CD). All completed the 20-item version of the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-20) before treatment, then at two and 6 months after delivery of the dentures. The SF-36 general health questionnaire was completed at baseline and 6 months only. RESULTS: Pretreatment and 6-month data from 55 subjects were analyzed. Those who received the IODs had significantly better OHIP-20 total scores at 6 months. Results for IOD subjects were also superior in the functional limitation, physical pain, physical disability and psychological disability subscales. While no significant between group difference was found on the SF-36 health survey, significant pre-post-treatment differences within the IOD group were detected for the role emotional, vitality and the social function scales. CONCLUSIONS: Mandibular overdentures retained by two implants provide elderly patients with better OHQOL. General health-related quality of life improved in the implant group.     

Masticatory performance and chewing experience with implant-retained mandibular overdentures

The relationship between masticatory performance and chewing experience has not yet been explored for patients with implant-retained overdentures. Although many relationships have been found between parameters of objective and subjective oral function, the structure of these relationships remain unclear. Therefore, we studied in a randomized clinical trial the relationship between the comminution of an artificial test food, i.e. masticatory performance, and the subjective chewing experience. The trial involved a comparison between two groups receiving implant treatment and one group receiving conventional complete dentures (CD). The implant treatment involved either a mainly implant-supported mandibular overdenture on a transmandibular implant (TMI) or an implant-tissue-supported mandibular overdenture on two IMZ implants (IMZ). Masticatory performance as well as chewing experience were substantially better for the implant-retained overdentures compared with the complete denture group. No significant differences emerged between the TMI and the IMZ group. A multiple regression analysis did not provide any comprehensibility in the relationship between masticatory performance and the variables of chewing experience. In the linear structural relation analysis (LISREL) no direct relationship was found between masticatory performance and functional complaints mandibular denture. The results show that an improvement in masticatory performance does not imply the same improvement in chewing experience and vice versa.     

A digital technique for fabricating an interim implant-supported fixed prosthesis immediately after implant placement in patients with complete edentulism

The conversion of a denture into an interim implant-supported, screw-retained restoration has become the standard method for immediate interim restoration in patients with complete edentulism. The most critical steps of the denture conversion process are the creation of appropriate denture access holes to prevent displacement of the denture by the interim cylinders and removal of the denture flanges to facilitate both good esthetics and accessibility for oral hygiene after the denture is connected to the interim cylinders. This article presents a digital technique for designing and fabricating an interim implant-supported, fixed prosthesis for edentulous patients. The interim prosthesis has cylinder access holes that are digitally prefabricated and a denture flange part that is designed to be easily sectioned. This technique facilitates more straightforward and efficient immediate restoration for edentulous patients after implant placement.