Five-year clinical trial using three attachment systems for implant overdentures

Objective The objective is to compare, in a prospective randomized clinical trial, three types of attachment systems for mandibular implant overdenture, focusing on costs, maintenance requirements and complications from baseline to the end of 5‐year follow‐up period. Materials and Methods Sixty‐nine...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical oral implants research 2014-02, Vol.25 (2), p.e171-e178
Main Authors: Cristache, Corina Marilena, Muntianu, Ligia Adriana Stanca, Burlibasa, Mihai, Didilescu, Andreea Cristiana
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Clinical trials
complications
costs
Costs and Cost Analysis
Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
Dentistry
Denture Retention - methods
Denture, Overlay
Female
Humans
Jaw, Edentulous - rehabilitation
locator
magnet
Magnetics
Male
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
prosthetic maintenance
retentive anchor
Suture Anchors
Treatment Outcome
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective The objective is to compare, in a prospective randomized clinical trial, three types of attachment systems for mandibular implant overdenture, focusing on costs, maintenance requirements and complications from baseline to the end of 5‐year follow‐up period. Materials and Methods Sixty‐nine fully mandibular and fully/partially maxillary edentulous patients received two screw‐type Straumann implants, in the mandibular canine region. New overdentures with three types of attachment systems were inserted according to an early‐loading protocol: Group B (balls, divided into Subgroup B.1 – retentive anchor with gold matrix and Subgroup B.2 – retentive anchor with titanium matrix) (n = 23), Group M (magnets) (n = 23) and Group L (locator) (n = 23). Results The highest maintenance event number (195) was observed in Group B vs. 31 in Group L and 15 in Group M. Significantly more complications were recorded in Subgroup B.1 than in Subgroup B.2, Group M and Group L (P 
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/clr.12086