2002Journal of Oral RehabilitationOpen access

Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures

Anita Visser, M.E. Geertman, Henny J. A. Meijer, Gerry M. Raghoebar, J.M. Kwakman, N.H.J. Creugers, Rob P. van Oort

Open full text 36 citations

Abstract

The purpose of this multicentre randomized clinical trial was to analyse surgical and prosthetic aftercare and clinical implant performance of edentulous patients with implant-retained mandibular overdentures and of patients with conventional dentures, either or not after pre-prosthetic vestibuloplasty and deepening of the floor of the mouth. The evaluation period was 5 years. The implant systems evaluated were the IMZ implant system, the Brånemark implant system and the Transmandibular Implant system. The centre in Groningen had five groups (n=149) and the centre in Nijmegen had three groups (n=86). The evaluation comprised of surgical and prosthetic aftercare, together with clinical implant performance (CIP). The highest implant loss (29%) is found in the Transmandibular Implant group. All groups had prosthetic revisions and complications according to the CIP-scale. The majority of the patients in the endosseous implant groups were subject to minor complications. The CIP-score of the Transmandibular Implant group is significantly higher than the scores of the other groups, because of the high number of lost posts. In 26;1% of the patients in this group score 4 is given, which means failure of the implant system. From this study it can be concluded that the endosseous implant systems used in this study have less surgical aftercare and a better clinical implant performance than the Transmandibular Implant system and are therefore the systems of choice for the edentulous mandible.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The purpose of this multicentre randomized clinical trial was to analyse surgical and prosthetic aftercare and clinical implant performance of edentulous patients with implant-retained mandibular overdentures and of patients with conventional dentures, either or not after pre-prosthetic vestibuloplasty and deepening of the floor of the mouth. The evaluation period was 5 years. The implant systems evaluated were the IMZ implant system, the Brånemark implant system and the Transmandibular Implant system. The centre in Groningen had five groups (n=149) and the centre in Nijmegen had three groups (n=86). The evaluation comprised of surgical and prosthetic aftercare, together with clinical implant performance (CIP). The highest implant loss (29%) is found in the Transmandibular Implant group. All groups had prosthetic revisions and complications according to the CIP-scale. The majority of the patients in the endosseous implant groups were subject to minor complications. The CIP-score of the Transmandibular Implant group is significantly higher than the scores of the other groups, because of the high number of lost posts. In 26;1% of the patients in this group score 4 is given, which means failure of the implant system. From this study it can be concluded that the endosseous implant systems used in this study have less surgical aftercare and a better clinical implant performance than the Transmandibular Implant system and are therefore the systems of choice for the edentulous mandible.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 36 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The purpose of this multicentre randomized clinical trial was to analyse surgical and prosthetic aftercare and clinical implant performance of edentulous patients with implant-retained mandibular overdentures and of patients with conventional dentures, either or not after pre-prosthetic vestibuloplasty and deepening of the floor of the mouth. The evaluation period was 5 years. The implant systems evaluated were the IMZ implant system, the Brånemark implant system and the Transmandibular Implant system. The centre in Groningen had five groups (n=149) and the centre in Nijmegen had three groups (n=86). The evaluation comprised of surgical and prosthetic aftercare, together with clinical implant performance (CIP). The highest implant loss (29%) is found in the Transmandibular Implant group. All groups had prosthetic revisions and complications according to the CIP-scale. The majority of the patients in the endosseous implant groups were subject to minor complications. The CIP-score of the Transmandibular Implant group is significantly higher than the scores of the other groups, because of the high number of lost posts. In 26;1% of the patients in this group score 4 is given, which means failure of the implant system. From this study it can be concluded that the endosseous implant systems used in this study have less surgical aftercare and a better clinical implant performance than the Transmandibular Implant system and are therefore the systems of choice for the edentulous mandible.

Key concepts: Dentures, Implant, Dentistry, Medicine, Mandible (arthropod mouthpart), Orthodontics, Surgery, Genus

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Five years of aftercare of implant‐retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures — Research Paper | ScholarLens