Editorial Type:
Article Category: Other
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Jun 2015

Two-Year Success Rate of Implant-Retained Mandibular Overdentures by Novice General Dentistry Residents

DDS,
DDS, MS, PhD,
DDS, PhD, and
DDS, PhD, MPH
Page Range: 268 – 275
DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00148
Save
Download PDF

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the clinical success and patient satisfaction when dental implant–retained mandibular overdentures are placed and restored by novice general dentistry residents. A total of 50 subjects who were dissatisfied with their mandibular complete dentures were enrolled in the study. Two dental implants were placed in the anterior mandible between the mental foramina by novice general dentistry residents under the direct supervision of the principal investigator. The resident attached the denture to the implants 3 to 4 months later using locator attachments. The implant success rate was determined by measuring bone loss, mobility, pocket probing depth, and gingival and plaque indices. Subjects were asked to complete a satisfaction questionnaire with the prosthesis at 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years after overdenture delivery. A total of 100 implants were placed in the 50 study subjects. Of these, 2 implants were lost in 1 subject, and 1 subject died due to unrelated causes. Of the 48 remaining subjects, 45 have had their implants restored with overdentures. The subjects' overall satisfaction with fit and ability to chew hard foods with their mandibular overdentures improved significantly (P < .05) following the denture attachment to the dental implants. We conclude that novice general dentistry residents can successfully place mandibular implants and restore them with overdentures under direct supervision, subsequently enhancing the subjects' satisfaction with their mandibular dentures.

<bold>
  <sc>Figure 1.</sc>
</bold>
Figure 1.

Implant-supported overdenture procedure. (a) Edentulous mandible. (b) Surgical guide. (c) Two Zimmer implants (diameter = 3.7 mm; height = 10–13 mm) were placed in the intraforaminal area. (d) Healing abutment was removed at the #22 site. (e) Zimmer locator abutment (platform diameter = 3.5mm; cuff length = 0–3 mm) was placed. Pick-up procedure is shown. (f) Denture tissue side after pick-up procedure.


<bold>
  <sc>Figures 2–3.</sc>
</bold>
Figures 2–3.

Figure 2. Image analysis software was calibrated, referring the known implant and abutment length. (a) Calibration using Dolphin 3D imaging 11.5 (Patterson Dental Supply). (b) Measurement of the anterior mandibular height. Figure 3. Measurement of peri-implant bone resorption in the distal and mesial implant wall. (a) Immediately after placement. (b) Two years after placement. The mean (SD) bone loss at 2-year follow-up was 0.33 (0.48) mm overall, 0.63 (0.3) and 0.41 (0.5) mm at the mesial and distal side of #22, and 0.23 (0.3) and 0.11 (0.3) mm at the mesial and distal side of #27, respectively.


<bold>
  <sc>Figures 4–5.</sc>
</bold>
Figures 4–5.

Figure 4. Evaluation of 2-implant retained overdenture prosthesis by experienced providers. Figure 5. Patients' overall satisfaction with the 2-implant retained overdentures (n = 45). *Statistically significant as compared with baseline, P < .05.


Contributor Notes

Corresponding author, e-mail: Hans_Malmstrom@URMC.Rochester.edu
  • Download PDF