Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(03): 619-626
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1736416
Original Article

Implant Stability Changes for a Single Implant Mandibular Overdenture

Karim Fouda
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Ahmed Fahmy
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Khaled Aziz
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Marwa Abdel Aal
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Amr Naguib
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Nouran Abdel Nabi
1   Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives To compare the changes in implant stability for the nonsubmerged and submerged protocols for a single-implant retained mandibular overdenture using Cendres and Metaux Locator attachment throughout a 24-month follow-up.

Materials and Methods Eighty edentulous patients who were seeking to install a single implant in the midline of the completely edentulous mandible. At the day of implant installation, patients were randomized into two groups using sealed envelopes: the nonsubmerged and submerged groups. After 3 months of healing period, randomization using sealed envelopes was performed and patients were randomized to receive the Cendres and Metaux Locator attachment. The periotest readings were recorded using the Periotest M device, every 3 months for the first year and annually in the second year. The scope of this clinical trial focused only on results of the Cendres and Metaux attachment.

Statistical Analysis The Mann–Whitney U-test was used for comparison between study groups for independent samples. Two-sided p-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results There was no statistically significant difference between the mean periotest readings of both groups throughout the 24-month follow-up. Both groups showed an improvement in mean periotest readings with the submerged group tending to show greater stability at 6, 12, and 24-month follow-ups.

Conclusions The nonsubmerged and the submerged healing protocols resulted in reliable periotest readings with the submerged group showing greater improvement than the nonsubmerged, although this improvement is nonsignificant when using the Cendres and Metaux attachment for a single mandibular overdenture.

Keywords

nonsubmerged - Periotest - single-implant retained mandibular overdenture - submerged

Authors' Contributions

K.F. was responsible for recording of the periotest values for all groups of patients at the different follow-up intervals throughout the 24-month follow-up. A.F. was responsible for reviewing and editing of the manuscript. Khaled Aziz was responsible for editing the manuscript. M.A.A. was responsible for installing all of the implants. A.N. was responsible for the randomization of patients using sealed envelopes, he was responsible for preparing all of the envelopes and was also responsible for arranging the appointments for the different follow-ups of all recruited patients. N.A.N. was responsible for monitoring all of the clinical steps and interpretation of the data.




Publication History

Article published online:
08 December 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • Refrences

  • 1 Brånemark PI, Adell R, Breine U, Hansson BO, Lindström J, Ohlsson A. Intra-osseous anchorage of dental prostheses. I. Experimental studies. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg 1969; 3 (02) 81-100
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R. et al. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl 1977; 16: 1-132
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Mellati E, Chen S, Davies H, Fitzgerald W, Darby I. Healing of Bio-Oss® grafted marginal gaps at implants placed into fresh extraction sockets of incisor teeth in dogs: a study on the effect of submerged vs. non-submerged healing. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26 (05) 553-562
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco M, Vogel G. Long-term survival and success of oral implants in the treatment of full and partial arches: a 7-year prospective study with the ITI dental implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2004; 19 (02) 247-259
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Bernard JP. et al. Long-term evaluation of non-submerged ITI implants. Part 1: 8-year life table analysis of a prospective multi-center study with 2359 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997; 8 (03) 161-172
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Buser D, Mericske-Stern R, Dula K, Lang NP. Clinical experience with one-stage, non-submerged dental implants. Adv Dent Res 1999; 13: 153-161
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Becktor JP, Isaksson S, Billström C. A prospective multicenter study using two different surgical approaches in the mandible with turned Brånemark implants: conventional loading using fixed prostheses. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2007; 9 (04) 179-185
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Natali AN, Carniel EL, Pavan PG. Investigation of viscoelastoplastic response of bone tissue in oral implants press fit process. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2009; 91 (02) 868-875
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Meredith N. Assessment of implant stability as a prognostic determinant. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11 (05) 491-501
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Schulte W, Lukas D. Periotest to monitor osseointegration and to check the occlusion in oral implantology. J Oral Implantol 1993; 19 (01) 23-32
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Thomason JM, Kelly SA, Bendkowski A, Ellis JS. Two implant retained overdentures–a review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements. J Dent 2012; 40 (01) 22-34
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Thomason JM. The McGill Consensus Statement on Overdentures. Mandibular 2-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2002; 10 (03) 95-96
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Harder S, Wolfart S, Egert C, Kern M. Three-year clinical outcome of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures–results of preliminary prospective study. J Dent 2011; 39 (10) 656-661
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Cheng T, Sun G, Huo J, He X, Wang Y, Ren YF. Patient satisfaction and masticatory efficiency of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures using the stud and magnetic attachments. J Dent 2012; 40 (11) 1018-1023
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Cordioli G, Majzoub Z, Castagna S. Mandibular overdentures anchored to single implants: a five-year prospective study. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78 (02) 159-165
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Bryant SR, Walton JN, MacEntee MIA. A 5-year randomized trial to compare 1 or 2 implants for implant overdentures. J Dent Res 2015; 94 (01) 36-43
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Kern M, Behrendt C, Fritzer E. et al. 5-year randomized multicenter clinical trial on single dental implants placed in the midline of the edentulous mandible. Clin Oral Implants Res 2021; 32 (02) 212-221
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Maeda Y, Horisaka M, Yagi K. Biomechanical rationale for a single implant-retained mandibular overdenture: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2008; 19 (03) 271-275
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Walton JN, Glick N, Macentee MI. A randomized clinical trial comparing patient satisfaction and prosthetic outcomes with mandibular overdentures retained by one or two implants. Int J Prosthodont 2009; 22 (04) 331-339
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Cune M, van Kampen F, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket retained mandibular implant overdentures: a cross-over clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont 2005; 18 (02) 99-105
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Fuhrmann G, Steiner M, Freitag-Wolf S, Kern M. Resin bonding to three types of polyaryletherketones (PAEKs)-durability and influence of surface conditioning. Dent Mater 2014; 30 (03) 357-363
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Passia N, Ghazal M, Kern M. Long-term retention behaviour of resin matrix attachment systems for overdentures. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2016; 57: 88-94
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Choi JW, Yun BH, Jeong CM, Huh JB. Retentive properties of two stud attachments with polyetherketoneketone or nylon insert in mandibular implant overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2018; 33 (05) 1079-1088
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Maniewicz S, Badoud I, Herrmann FR. et al. In vitro retention force changes during cyclic dislodging of three novel attachment systems for implant overdentures with different implant angulations. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020; 31 (04) 315-327
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 AAl MA, El Far M, Sheta NM. et al. Correlation of implant stability between two non-invasive methods using submerged and non submerged healing protocols; a randomized clinical trial. J Oral Implantol 2020; 46 (06) 571-579
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Hayashi M, Kobayashi C, Ogata H, Yamaoka M, Ogiso B. A no-contact vibration device for measuring implant stability. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21 (09) 931-936
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Zix J, Hug S, Kessler-Liechti G, Mericske-Stern R. Measurement of dental implant stability by resonance frequency analysis and damping capacity assessment: comparison of both techniques in a clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23 (03) 525-530
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Meredith N, Book K, Friberg B, Jemt T, Sennerby L. Resonance frequency measurements of implant stability in vivo. A cross-sectional and longitudinal study of resonance frequency measurements on implants in the edentulous and partially dentate maxilla. Clin Oral Implants Res 1997; 8 (03) 226-233
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Olivé J, Aparicio C. Periotest method as a measure of osseointegrated oral implant stability. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990; 5 (04) 390-400
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 30 Khalaila W, Nasser M, Ormianer Z. Evaluation of the relationship between Periotest values, marginal bone loss, and stability of single dental implants: a 3-year prospective study. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 124 (02) 183-188
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Schulte W, Lukas D. The Periotest method. Int Dent J 1992; 42 (06) 433-440
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Jemt T, Lekholm U, Adell R. Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of partially edentulous patients: a preliminary study on 876 consecutively placed fixtures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989; 4 (03) 211-217
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 33 Lekholm U, Zarb GA. Patient selection and preparation. In: Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. eds. Tissue Integrated Prostheses: Osseointegration in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago, IL: Quintessence Publishing Company; 1985: 199-209
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 34 Sennerby L, Roos J. Surgical determinants of clinical success of osseointegrated oral implants: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11 (05) 408-420
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Soicu S, Bratu D, Borsanu I. Damping capacity assessment versus resonance frequency analysis in the determination of dental implant stability. Timis Med J 2010; 60: 109-115
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 36 Truhlar RS, Morris HF, Ochi S. Stability of the bone-implant complex. Results of longitudinal testing to 60 months with the Periotest device on endosseous dental implants. Ann Periodontol 2000; 5 (01) 42-55
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Romanos GE, Toh CG, Siar CH, Wicht H, Yacoob H, Nentwig GH. Bone-implant interface around titanium implants under different loading conditions: a histomorphometrical analysis in the Macaca fascicularis monkey. J Periodontol 2003; 74 (10) 1483-1490
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Branemark P-I, Grondahl K, Branemark B. Why osseointegration works and how it did in the first patients treated. Basic facts and philosophical thoughts. In: Branemark P-I. eds. The Osseointegration Book. From Calvarium to calcaneus. Berlin: Quintessence; 2005: 38
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 39 Roberts WE, Helm FR, Marshall KJ, Gongloff RK. Rigid endosseous implants for orthodontic and orthopedic anchorage. Angle Orthod 1989; 59 (04) 247-256
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Levy D, Deporter DA, Pilliar RM, Watson PA, Valiquette N. Initial healing in the dog of submerged versus non-submerged porous-coated endosseous dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996; 7 (02) 101-110
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar