Mandibular single-implant overdentures: preliminary results of a randomised-control trial on early loading with different implant diameters and attachment systems

Objectives: To determine surgical and prosthodontic outcomes of mandibular single‐implant overdentures, opposing complete maxillary dentures, using a wide diameter implant and large ball attachment system compared with different regular diameter implants with standard attachment systems. Materials a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical oral implants research 2011-03, Vol.22 (3), p.330-337
Main Authors: Alsabeeha, Nabeel H. M., Payne, Alan G. T., De Silva, Rohana K., Thomson, W. Murray
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Age
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Alveolar Bone Loss - etiology
attachment systems
Bone Density - physiology
Dental Abutments
Dental Implants, Single-Tooth
Dental Prosthesis Design
Dental Prosthesis Repair
Dental Prosthesis Retention
Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
Dental Restoration Failure
Dentistry
Denture Rebasing
Denture Retention
Denture, Complete, Lower
Denture, Overlay
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Immediate Dental Implant Loading
Male
Mandible - surgery
mandibular single-implant overdentures
Middle Aged
Osseointegration - physiology
Treatment Outcome
wide diameter implants
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives: To determine surgical and prosthodontic outcomes of mandibular single‐implant overdentures, opposing complete maxillary dentures, using a wide diameter implant and large ball attachment system compared with different regular diameter implants with standard attachment systems. Materials and methods: Thirty‐six edentulous participants (mean age 68 years, SD 9.2) were randomly assigned into three treatment groups (n=12). A single implant was placed in the mandibular midline of participants to support an overdenture using a 6‐week loading protocol. The control group received Southern regular implants and standard ball attachments. One group received Southern 8‐mm‐wide implants and large ball attachments. Another group received Neoss regular implants and Locator attachments. Parametric and non‐parametric tests of a statistical software package (SPSS) were used to determine between groups differences in marginal bone loss, implant stability, implant, and prosthodontic success (P
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.02004.x