Mandibular two-implant telescopic overdentures

: To stabilize mandibular overdentures in edentulous patients, various connector types which can be attached to between two and four implants placed in the anterior mandible are possible. Treatment using non‐rigid telescopic connectors on two interforaminal implants for overdenture stabilization beg...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical oral implants research 2004-10, Vol.15 (5), p.560-569
Hauptverfasser: Heckmann, Siegfried M., Schrott, Alexander, Graef, Friedrich, Wichmann, Manfred G., Weber, Hans-Peter
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:: To stabilize mandibular overdentures in edentulous patients, various connector types which can be attached to between two and four implants placed in the anterior mandible are possible. Treatment using non‐rigid telescopic connectors on two interforaminal implants for overdenture stabilization began in 1989. The objective of this study is to investigate soft‐ and hard‐tissue conditions as well as prosthesis function after a period of 10 years. This also involved an evaluation of correlations between radiographic and clinical parameters. Twenty‐three subjects with 46 interforaminal implants (ITI solid screw implants, 12 mm in length, 4.1 mm in diameter; 10.4 years in situ, range, 8–12.8 years) were investigated. Modified plaque index (mPI), sulcus fluid flow rate (SFFR), modified sulcus bleeding index (mBI), probing depth (PD), distance from implant crown margin to the coronal border of the peri‐implant mucosa (DIM), attachment level (AL), width of keratinized mucosa (KM), Periotest® values (PTVs) and prosthesis function were evaluated. In the radiographic evaluation, the distance between implant shoulder and first crestal bone–implant contact (DIB) in mm and the horizontal bone loss (HBL) in mm were measured. The relatively high mPI scores (mean, 0.82; score, 0 in 44.4%; SD, 0.83) did not result in increased SFFR scores (mean, 12; min, 3, max, 38; SD, 7.43) or higher mBI scores (mean, 0.35; score, 0 in 70.8%; SD, 0.59), which was commensurate with healthy peri‐implant mucosa. A mean PD value of 2.15 mm (min, 1 mm; max, 5 mm; SD, 0.96) and a mean DIM value of 0.28 mm (min, 0 mm; max, 2 mm; SD, 0.52) were measured. The implants were stable, showing a mean Periotest® value of −1.91 (max, 02, min, −6; SD, 1.76). A mean DIB of 3.19±0.95 mm (range, 1.3–5.16 mm) and a mean HBL of 1.6±1.52 mm (range, 0.28–8.33 mm) were calculated. A correlation was found between DIB and the parameters SFFR (P=0.060), DIM (P=0.042), AL (P=0.050) and especially PTV (P
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01064.x