Methods: In total, 31 patients with 131 TioBlast (R)-implants (53 in the maxilla, 78 in the mandible) with bar-retained overdentures made of prefabricated components either without or with extensions (groups PC and PCE)and cast bars (group CB) were examined clinically and radiographically 10 years after prosthodontic loading. The plaque index (PI), sulcus bleeding index (SBI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and pathological bone loss (BL) were measured. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the Bonferroni adjustment was used to detect significant differences among the groups (α-level = 0.05).
Results: The values of PI, SBI, PPD, and BL were in the order group PC > group PCE > group CB. Except for PPD, implants supporting mandibular bar-retained overdentures had higher values than implants supporting bar-retained overdentures located in the maxilla. However, the statistical analysis showed neither a significant difference among the groups with the different attachment systems nor among the locations of the implants with regard to the jaw.
Conclusion: A tendency towards increased peri-implant complications was seen among the groups. The group treated with conventional bars had the lowest mean plaque accumulation, sulcus bleeding, pocket depth (except for implants supporting maxillary bars), and pathological bone loss. Based on these results, a preference for prefabricated bars without extension has to be considered.