Immediately loaded mini‐implants supporting mandibular overdentures: A one‐year comparative prospective cohort study

• Published in: Clinical implant dentistry and related research 2020-08, Vol.22 (4), p.507-513
• Main Authors: Mifsud, David P., Sammut, Edward J., Degiorgio, Jan, Borg, Peter, Cortes, Arthur R. G., Attard, Nikolai J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Alveolar Bone Loss - diagnostic imaging; Alveolar Bone Loss - etiology; Bleeding; Bone implants; bone level changes; Bone loss; Clinical outcomes; Cohort analysis; Cohort Studies; conventional diameter implants; Dental implants; Dental Implants - adverse effects; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Overlay; Dentures; Female; Females; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Immediate Dental Implant Loading; immediate loading; implant survival; Mandible; Mandible - diagnostic imaging; Mandible - surgery; Mechanical loading; Middle Aged; mini‐implants; overdentures; Prospective Studies; Radiographs; Radiography; Regression analysis; Risk analysis; Risk factors
• ISSN: 1523-0899; 1708-8208
• DOI: 10.1111/cid.12930

Background Little is known about differences between mini‐implants and conventional immediately loaded implants for overdentures. Objectives To compare clinical outcomes using two immediately loaded conventional or mini‐implants for mandibular overdentures. Materials and Methods Edentulous patients receiving either conventional (4.1 mm) or mini‐implants (2.9 mm or less), based on available bone width were analyzed. All implants were immediately loaded with mandibular overdentures installed using locator attachments. Digital periapical radiographs for measuring marginal bone loss and clinical outcomes (ie, periodontal probing, plaque, and bleeding indices) were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12‐month follow‐up periods. Results Fifty patients (25 receiving conventional implants—12 females, mean age of 65.3 ± 7.3 years; and 25 receiving mini‐implants—11 females, mean age of 66.8 ± 8.1 years) was analyzed. Peak insertion torque (P = .001) and bone loss (P = .02), as well as change in plaque (P = .02) and bleeding (P = .04) indices at 12 months differed significantly between groups. Furthermore, linear regression revealed the height of the locator as a risk factor for bone loss (P = .038). Conclusions The present findings suggest that two mini‐implants are significantly more susceptible to bone loss after immediate loading, for which the height of locator might be considered a risk factor.