Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Comparative Clinical Study of Conventional Dental Implants and Mini Dental Implants for Mandibular Overdentures: A Randomized Clinical Trial
View through CrossRef
AbstractBackgroundDental implant‐retained overdentures have been chosen as the treatment of choice for complete mandibular removable dentures. Dental implants, such as mini dental implants, and components for retaining overdentures, are commercially available. However, comparative clinical studies comparing mini dental implants and conventional dental implants using different attachment for implant‐retained overdentures have not been well documented.PurposeTo compare the clinical outcomes of using two mini dental implants with Equator® attachments, four mini dental implants with Equator attachments, or two conventional dental implants with ball attachments, by means of a randomized clinical trial.Materials and methodsSixty patients received implant‐retained mandibular overdentures in the interforaminal region. The patients were divided into three groups. In Groups 1 and 2, two and four mini dental implants, respectively, were placed and immediately loaded by overdentures, using Equator® attachments. In Group 3, conventional implants were placed. After osseointegration, the implants were loaded by overdentures, using ball attachments. The study distribution was randomized and double‐blinded. Outcome measures included changes in radiological peri‐implant bone level from surgery to 12 months postinsertion, prosthodontic complications and patient satisfaction.ResultsThe cumulative survival rate in the three clinical groups after one year was 100%. There was no significant difference (p < 0.05) in clinical results regarding the number (two or four) of mini dental implants with Equator attachments. However, there was a significant difference in marginal bone loss and patient satisfaction between those receiving mini dental implants with Equator attachments and conventional dental implants with ball attachments. The marginal bone resorption in Group 3 was significantly higher than in Groups 1 and 2 (p < 0.05); there were no significant differences between Groups 1 and 2. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between Groups 1 and 2 but it was significantly higher than that in Group3 (p < 0.05).ConclusionsTwo and four mini dental implants can be immediately used successfully for retaining lower complete dentures, as shown after a 1‐year follow up.
Title: Comparative Clinical Study of Conventional Dental Implants and Mini Dental Implants for Mandibular Overdentures: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Description:
AbstractBackgroundDental implant‐retained overdentures have been chosen as the treatment of choice for complete mandibular removable dentures.
Dental implants, such as mini dental implants, and components for retaining overdentures, are commercially available.
However, comparative clinical studies comparing mini dental implants and conventional dental implants using different attachment for implant‐retained overdentures have not been well documented.
PurposeTo compare the clinical outcomes of using two mini dental implants with Equator® attachments, four mini dental implants with Equator attachments, or two conventional dental implants with ball attachments, by means of a randomized clinical trial.
Materials and methodsSixty patients received implant‐retained mandibular overdentures in the interforaminal region.
The patients were divided into three groups.
In Groups 1 and 2, two and four mini dental implants, respectively, were placed and immediately loaded by overdentures, using Equator® attachments.
In Group 3, conventional implants were placed.
After osseointegration, the implants were loaded by overdentures, using ball attachments.
The study distribution was randomized and double‐blinded.
Outcome measures included changes in radiological peri‐implant bone level from surgery to 12 months postinsertion, prosthodontic complications and patient satisfaction.
ResultsThe cumulative survival rate in the three clinical groups after one year was 100%.
There was no significant difference (p < 0.
05) in clinical results regarding the number (two or four) of mini dental implants with Equator attachments.
However, there was a significant difference in marginal bone loss and patient satisfaction between those receiving mini dental implants with Equator attachments and conventional dental implants with ball attachments.
The marginal bone resorption in Group 3 was significantly higher than in Groups 1 and 2 (p < 0.
05); there were no significant differences between Groups 1 and 2.
There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between Groups 1 and 2 but it was significantly higher than that in Group3 (p < 0.
05).
ConclusionsTwo and four mini dental implants can be immediately used successfully for retaining lower complete dentures, as shown after a 1‐year follow up.
Related Results
Safety and Efficacy of Atezolizumab in Ovarian Cancer
Safety and Efficacy of Atezolizumab in Ovarian Cancer
Abstract
Introduction
Although the efficacy of PD-L1 blockade has been evaluated in analyses that combine pharmacologically distinct antibodies, the specific efficacy and safety of...
Awareness of Dental Personnel towards Occupational Injury- A Cross Sectional Study
Awareness of Dental Personnel towards Occupational Injury- A Cross Sectional Study
TITLE:
Awareness of dental personnel towards occupational injury- a cross sectional study
ABSTRACT
Objective: To determine the awareness of dental personnel towards dental occup...
Studies on maxillary overdentures: implant- and prosthesis survival, cost analysis and patient-reported outcomes
Studies on maxillary overdentures: implant- and prosthesis survival, cost analysis and patient-reported outcomes
Edentulism is a debilitating condition which may negatively affect quality of life, particularly in relation to nutritional and social health, speech, and poor facial appearance. P...
Evaluation of Retention force of Two Different Attachments for Mandibular Implant Supported Overdenture
(A Comparative Study)
Evaluation of Retention force of Two Different Attachments for Mandibular Implant Supported Overdenture
(A Comparative Study)
Abstract
Objectives: In an in vitro study, comparing the maximum retentive force of ball and socket attachments with locator attachments for mandibular implant-supported ov...
Primerjalna književnost na prelomu tisočletja
Primerjalna književnost na prelomu tisočletja
In a comprehensive and at times critical manner, this volume seeks to shed light on the development of events in Western (i.e., European and North American) comparative literature ...
Swallowing dynamics of two implants versus single implant-retained mandibular overdentures: randomized clinical trial
Swallowing dynamics of two implants versus single implant-retained mandibular overdentures: randomized clinical trial
Objective This study evaluated the swallowing dynamics of two-implant (2-IOD) versus singleimplant (1-IOD) mandibular overdentures using the Test of Mastication and Swallowing Soli...
Immediate vs. Delayed Loading of Mandibular Mini-Implant Overdentures: A 12-Month Comparative Randomized Controlled Trial
Immediate vs. Delayed Loading of Mandibular Mini-Implant Overdentures: A 12-Month Comparative Randomized Controlled Trial
Background and Aim: While mini-dental implants (MDIs) provide a minimally invasive surgical solution for prosthesis stabilization, the optimal timing for functional loading remains...
Guest Editorial
Guest Editorial
Dental caries is one of the major health problems in Indonesia. Data from Indonesian Basic Health Research in 2013, 2015 and 2018 showed a consistent increase in the prevalence of ...

