A retrospective analysis of dental implants in patients who received a mandibular overdenture with locator attachment

Aim: The objective of this study is to retrospectively examine the relative superiorities of mandibular overdenture dental implants interms of diameter, length, age and sex, and to determine the rate of implant survival.Material and Methods: The demographic data showing the age, sex and dental implant distribution by age of 138 patients whounderwent dental implant treatment at our clinic between 2011 and 2016 were retrieved from the archival records. Patients whounderwent mandibular overdenture with two implant-supported locater attachments were included in the study. The anatomicallocations, diameter and length characteristics and rate of loss of the implants were analyzed by way of descriptive statistical analysis.Results: Of 138 patients, 69 were female (50%) and 69 were male (50%), and a total number of 276 dental implants were evaluated.When distribution of these implants was examined, it was found that they were mostly placed in the region of 33-43 (94.2%). Themean age of the patients was 63 with an age range of 40 to 87 years. It was found that the dental implants were applied mostly inpatients ranging in age from 60 to 69 years (52.8%). The most common implant diameters were 4 mm (18%), 4.2 mm (18%) and 4.5mm (17%), respectively. The most common implant lengths were 12 mm (32%) and 14 mm (30%). The rate of implant survival wasfound to be 97.8%.Conclusion: The mandibular two-implant retained overdenture prosthesis with a locator attachment is a successful treatmentmethod with a high survival rate when factors such as diameter and length of the implant and age and sex of the patient are takeninto consideration.

PDF

___

1. Vogel R, Smith-Palmer J, Valentine W. Evaluating the health economic implications and cost-effectiveness of dental implants: a literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:343-56.
2. Krennmair G, Seemann R, Fazekas A, et al. Patient preference and satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or locator attachments: a crossover clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1560-8.
3. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, 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.
4. Ellis JS, Burawi G, Walls A, et al. Patient satisfaction with two designs of implant supported removable overdentures; ball attachment and magnets. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:1293-8.
5. Awad MA, Lund JP, Shapiro SH, et al. Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:390-6.
6. Bueno-Samper A, Hernandez-Aliaga M, Calvo-Guirado JL. The implant- supported milled bar overdenture: a literature review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15:e375-8.
7. Boven GC, Meijer HJA, Vissink A, et al. Maxillary implant overdentures retained by use of bars or locator attachments: 1-year findings from a randomized controlled trial. J Prosthodont Res. Published Online: Jun 11, 2019.
8. Cristache CM, Muntianu LAS, Burlibasa M, et al. Five year clinical trial using three attachment systems for implant overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:e171-e8.
9. Cordaro L, di Torresanto VM, Petricevic N, et al. Single unit attachments improve peri implant soft tissue conditions in mandibular overdentures supported by four implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:536-42.
10. Watson GK, Payne AGT, Purton DG, et al. Mandibular overdentures: comparative evaluation of prosthodontic maintenance of three different implant systems during the first year of service. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:259-66.
11. Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, et al. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 2004;13:221-6.
12. Cakarer S, Can T, Yaltirik M, et al. Complications associated with the ball, bar and Locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011;16:e953-9.
13. Kronstrom M, Carlsson GE. An international survey among prosthodontists of the use of mandibular implant supported dental prostheses. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e622-e6.
14. Yalcın M, Kaya B, Lacin N, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the effect of endosteal implants with different macro designs on stress distribution in different bone qualities. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;34:e43-e50.
15. Hasan I, Heinemann F, Aitlahrach M, et al. Biomechanical finite element analysis of small diameter and short dental implant. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2010;55:341-50.
16. Meric G, Erkmen E, Kurt A, et al. Biomechanical effects of two different collar implant structures on stress distribution under cantilever fixed partial dentures. Acta Odontol Scand 2011;69:374-84.
17. Cehreli M, Sahin S, Akca K. Role of mechanical environment and implant design on bone tissue differentiation: current knowledge and future contexts. J Dent 2004;32:123-32.
18. Vehemente VA, Chuang SK, Daher S, et al. Risk factors affecting dental implant survival. J Oral Implantol 2002;28:74-81.
19. Fernandez-Estevan L, Selva-Otaolaurruchi EJ, Montero J, et al. Oral health-related quality of life of implant-supported overdentures versus conventional complete prostheses: retrospective study of a cohort of edentulous patients. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2015;20:e450-8.
20. Sennerby L, Roos J. Surgical determinants of clinical success of osseointegrated oral implants: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11:408-20.
21. Atala MH, Ustaoğlu G, Çetin H. Dental İmplant Tedavisinde Başarı Faktörlerinin Değerlendirilmesi. Anatol Clin 2019;24:26-31.
22. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, et al. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981;10:387-416.
23. Berglundh T, Persson L, Klinge B. A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29:197-212.
24. Jang HW, Kang JK, Lee K, et al. A retrospective study on related factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants. J Adv Prosthodont 2011;3:204-15.
25. Visser A, Raghoebar GM, Meijer HJA, et al. Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosseous implants: A 5 year prospective study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:19-25.
26. Wismeijer D, Van Waas MAJ, Mulder J, et al. Clinical and radiological results of patients treated with three treatment modalities for overdentures on implants of the ITI® Dental Implant System. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 1999;10:297-306.
27. Batenburg RHK, Raghoebar GM, Van Oort RP, Heijdenrijk K, Boering G. Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosteal implants: A prospective, comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1998;27:435-9.
28. Geckili O, Bilhan H, Geckili E, et al. Evaluation of possible prognostic factors for the success, survival, and failure of dental implants. Implant Dent 2014;23:44-50.
29. Herrmann I, Lekholm U, Holm S, et al. Evaluation of patient and implant characteristics as potential prognostic factors for oral implant failures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2005;20:220-30.
30. Raikar S, Talukdar P, Kumari S, et al. Factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants: A retrospective study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2017;7:351-55.
31. Burns DR, Unger JW, Elswick Jr RK, et al. Prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures: Part I--Retention, stability, and tissue response. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:354-63.
32. Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics-E-Book: Elsevier Health Sciences; 2004.
33. Burns DR. Mandibular implant overdenture treatment: consensus and controversy. J Prosthodont 2000;9:37- 46.
34. Rignon-Bret C, Wulfman C, Hadida A, et al. Immediate Loading of Two Unsplinted Implants in Edentulous Patients with Mandibular Overdentures: A 10-year Retrospective Review of Patients from a Previously Conducted 1-year Cohort Study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;34:169-178.
35. Wyatt C, Zarb GA. Treatment outcomes of patients with implant-supported fixed partial prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 98;13:204-11
36. Iplikcioglu H, Akca K. Comparative evaluation of the effect of diameter, length and number of implants supporting three-unit fixed partial prostheses on stress distribution in the bone. J Dent 2002;30:41-6.
37. Petrie CS, Williams JL. Comparative evaluation of implant designs: influence of diameter, length, and taper on strains in the alveolar crest: A three dimensional finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:486-94.
38. Shin S-W, Bryant SR, Zarb GA. A retrospective study on the treatment outcome of wide-bodied implants. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:52-8.
39. Anitua E, Orive G. Finite element analysis of the influence of the offset placement of an implant supported prosthesis on bone stress distribution. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009;89:275-81.
40. Okumura N, Stegaroiu R, Kitamura E, et al. Influence of maxillary cortical bone thickness, implant design and implant diameter on stress around implants: a threedimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthodont Res 2010;54:133-42.
41. Ding X, Liao SH, Zhu XH, et al. Effect of diameter and length on stress distribution of the alveolar crest around immediate loading implants. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11:279-87.
42. Kong L, Gu Z, Li T, et al. Biomechanical optimization of implant diameter and length for immediate loading: a nonlinear finite element analysis. Int J Prosthodont 2009;22:607-15.