[EP-16] Splinted vs Nonsplinted attachments for mandibular implant-supported overdentures
[Abstract]
[Objective]
To compare the clinical outcomes of mandibular implant-supported overdentures using solitary (nonsplinted, NS) and bar (splinted, SP) attachments.
[Method]
The data included 82 patients with completely edentulous mandible treated with implant-supported overdentures at SNUDH between 2006 and 2016 (39 NS; 43 SP). The prosthodontic complications were analyzed at the treated arch level, and surgical complications of implants were analyzed at the implant level. The multivariable Cox regressions model was used to analyze the success and survival of overdentures and supporting implants.
[Results and Discussion]
The prosthodontic complication occurred in 67.4% of SP group and 66.7% of NS group with no significant differences between the groups (Fig. 1). Peri-implant diseases showed significantly higher risk in the SP group, and all instances of osseointegration failure occurred in the SP group (Table 1). The cumulative implant survival rate was 100% for the NS group and 96.8% for the SP group, with no significant difference. The risk of peri-implant disease was higher in the SP group than the NS group (Fig. 2). In the SP group, a significant increase in the risk of peri-implant disease was observed with a decrease in horizontal distance between implants (Table 2). Based on the findings of this research, for the patients with high risk of peri-implant disease, overdentures retained by nonsplinted attachments would be recommended, however, the attachment type should be carefully determined considering factors such as implant angulations.
[References]
1) Seo YH, Bae EB, Kim JW, et al. Clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures via locator implant attachment and locator bar attachment. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016;8:313-320.
2) Elsyad MA, Khirallah AS. Circumferential bone loss around splinted and nonsplinted immediately loaded implants retaining mandibular overdentures: A randomized controlled clinical trial using cone beam computed tomography. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116:741-748.
3) Lian M, Zhao K, Wang F, et al. Stud vs Bar attachments for Maxillary four-implant-supported overdentures: 3- to 9-year results from a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34:936-946.
4) Närhi TO, Hevinga M, Voorsmit RA, et al. Maxillary overdentures retained by splinted and unsplinted implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16:259–266.
[Objective]
To compare the clinical outcomes of mandibular implant-supported overdentures using solitary (nonsplinted, NS) and bar (splinted, SP) attachments.
[Method]
The data included 82 patients with completely edentulous mandible treated with implant-supported overdentures at SNUDH between 2006 and 2016 (39 NS; 43 SP). The prosthodontic complications were analyzed at the treated arch level, and surgical complications of implants were analyzed at the implant level. The multivariable Cox regressions model was used to analyze the success and survival of overdentures and supporting implants.
[Results and Discussion]
The prosthodontic complication occurred in 67.4% of SP group and 66.7% of NS group with no significant differences between the groups (Fig. 1). Peri-implant diseases showed significantly higher risk in the SP group, and all instances of osseointegration failure occurred in the SP group (Table 1). The cumulative implant survival rate was 100% for the NS group and 96.8% for the SP group, with no significant difference. The risk of peri-implant disease was higher in the SP group than the NS group (Fig. 2). In the SP group, a significant increase in the risk of peri-implant disease was observed with a decrease in horizontal distance between implants (Table 2). Based on the findings of this research, for the patients with high risk of peri-implant disease, overdentures retained by nonsplinted attachments would be recommended, however, the attachment type should be carefully determined considering factors such as implant angulations.
[References]
1) Seo YH, Bae EB, Kim JW, et al. Clinical evaluation of mandibular implant overdentures via locator implant attachment and locator bar attachment. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016;8:313-320.
2) Elsyad MA, Khirallah AS. Circumferential bone loss around splinted and nonsplinted immediately loaded implants retaining mandibular overdentures: A randomized controlled clinical trial using cone beam computed tomography. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116:741-748.
3) Lian M, Zhao K, Wang F, et al. Stud vs Bar attachments for Maxillary four-implant-supported overdentures: 3- to 9-year results from a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34:936-946.
4) Närhi TO, Hevinga M, Voorsmit RA, et al. Maxillary overdentures retained by splinted and unsplinted implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001;16:259–266.