IADR Abstract Archives
Fifteen-Year Clinical Outcome of Single Midline-Implant Supported Overdentures
Objectives: This prospective pilot study evaluated the clinical performance of mandibular overdentures supported by a single midline implant in edentulous patients with an observation time of up to 15 years.
Methods: Eleven eligible edentulous patients (5 female, 6 male) with existing mandibular dentures participated in the study with a mean age of 66.7 years. Each patient received a single implant in the midline of the mandible (Camlog Screwline, diameter 3.8 mm, length 11 mm). Submerged healing protocol was followed in 5 patients with uncovering taking place 2 months after insertion. In the other 6 patients a non-submerged protocol was followed with moderate immediate loading on healing abutments. The denture bases were relined temporarily during the healing period. Patients were provided with ball-attachments and the corresponding matrixes 2 months after insertion. The clinical follow-up examinations were carried on 4 weeks after implant loading and then annually.
Results: Six patients died during the 15-year observation period, their data were evaluated up to the last clinical recall (last attended examinations were: 3, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14 years). Five patients were available for the 15-year follow-up clinical examination. The mean observation time was 139 months (35-195 months). No implant loss was recorded. The most frequent observed complication was the loss of matrix retention necessitating readjustment, which was performed multiple times for some patients. All patients were affected by this event. The exchange of matrix was the second most common required intervention. Fracture of the denture base in the attachment area was a frequent complication. New mandibular dentures were inserted 3 times, twice for the same patient after a confirmed polymethylmethacrylate allergy.
Conclusions: The concept of mandibular overdentures supported by one single midline implant in edentulous patients seems to be a valid treatment option. Periodic recall-appointments are recommended due to the frequent interventions required.
Methods: Eleven eligible edentulous patients (5 female, 6 male) with existing mandibular dentures participated in the study with a mean age of 66.7 years. Each patient received a single implant in the midline of the mandible (Camlog Screwline, diameter 3.8 mm, length 11 mm). Submerged healing protocol was followed in 5 patients with uncovering taking place 2 months after insertion. In the other 6 patients a non-submerged protocol was followed with moderate immediate loading on healing abutments. The denture bases were relined temporarily during the healing period. Patients were provided with ball-attachments and the corresponding matrixes 2 months after insertion. The clinical follow-up examinations were carried on 4 weeks after implant loading and then annually.
Results: Six patients died during the 15-year observation period, their data were evaluated up to the last clinical recall (last attended examinations were: 3, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 14 years). Five patients were available for the 15-year follow-up clinical examination. The mean observation time was 139 months (35-195 months). No implant loss was recorded. The most frequent observed complication was the loss of matrix retention necessitating readjustment, which was performed multiple times for some patients. All patients were affected by this event. The exchange of matrix was the second most common required intervention. Fracture of the denture base in the attachment area was a frequent complication. New mandibular dentures were inserted 3 times, twice for the same patient after a confirmed polymethylmethacrylate allergy.
Conclusions: The concept of mandibular overdentures supported by one single midline implant in edentulous patients seems to be a valid treatment option. Periodic recall-appointments are recommended due to the frequent interventions required.