+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Mandibular overdentures: comparative evaluation of prosthodontic maintenance of three different implant systems during the first year of service



Mandibular overdentures: comparative evaluation of prosthodontic maintenance of three different implant systems during the first year of service



International Journal of Prosthodontics 15(3): 259-266



This prospective study evaluated the prosthodontic maintenance requirements during the first year of service of mandibular overdentures supported by two unsplinted implants using three different implant systems. Seventy-two patients randomly allocated to three equal groups were each provided with a conventional complete maxillary denture and a mandibular overdenture supported by two unsplinted implants. A different implant system was used for each group (Steri-Oss, ITI, or Southern Implants), and their prosthodontic maintenance requirements were compared, primarily for the patrix and matrix. Additional maintenance categories recorded included any type of overdenture fracture, reline or remake of the overdenture, and maintenance of the maxillary denture. Sixty-eight percent of the patients, regardless of implant system, required prosthodontic maintenance in the first year, most commonly for the matrices. The Southern Implants matrices required less maintenance than those of Steri-Oss or ITI (P < .05). Additional overdenture maintenance was required by 28% of patients, irrespective of implant system. When all categories of prosthodontic maintenance were combined, there were no differences between implant groups. Evaluation of overall prosthodontic success using six-field tables revealed statistically significant differences between the three implant systems, with more ITI and Steri-Oss patients than Southern Implants patients requiring overdenture retreatment (repair). During the first year of service, the matrix maintenance requirements of Southern Implants were significantly lower than those of the ITI or Steri-Oss groups; this was reflected in the number of retreatment (repair) categories recorded. Although the three systems did not differ significantly for overall prosthodontic maintenance, both the Steri-Oss and the ITI titanium matrices showed problems of clinical significance.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 046619897

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 12066489


Related references

Mandibular overdentures: professional time for prosthodontic maintenance during the first year of service using three different implant systems. International Journal of Prosthodontics 15(4): 379-384, 2002

Mandibular implant-supported overdentures: a prospective evaluation of the burden of prosthodontic maintenance with 3 different attachment systems. International Journal of Prosthodontics 13(3): 246-253, 2001

Mandibular two-implant overdentures: three-year prosthodontic maintenance using the locator attachment system. International Journal of Prosthodontics 24(4): 328-331, 2016

Mandibular two-implant overdentures: prosthodontic maintenance using different loading protocols and attachment systems. International Journal of Prosthodontics 24(5): 405-416, 2011

Maxillary Three-Implant Overdentures Opposing Mandibular Two-Implant Overdentures: 10-Year Prosthodontic Outcomes. International Journal of Prosthodontics 29(4): 327-336, 2016

Maintenance requirements associated with mandibular implant overdentures: clinical results after first year of service. Journal of Oral Implantology 37(6): 697-704, 2011

The prosthodontic maintenance requirements of mandibular mucosa- and implant-supported overdentures: a review of the literature. International Journal of Prosthodontics 13(3): 238-243, 2001

The influence of bar design (round versus milled bar) on prosthodontic maintenance of mandibular overdentures supported by 4 implants: a 5-year prospective study. International Journal of Prosthodontics 21(6): 514-520, 2009

Immediate functional load of mandibular implant overdentures: a surgical and prosthodontic rationale of 2 implant modalities. Journal of Oral Implantology 30(5): 297-306, 2004

Implant-retained mandibular overdentures: 6-year results of a multicenter clinical trial on 3 different implant systems. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 59(11): 1260-8; Discussion 1269-70, 2001

Maxillary Three-Implant Overdentures Opposing Mandibular Two-Implant Overdentures: 10-Year Surgical Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Trial. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 18(3): 527-544, 2016

The extent of maintenance required by implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 3-year report. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 11(6): 767-774, 1996

Patient satisfaction with maxillary 3-implant overdentures using different attachment systems opposing mandibular 2-implant overdentures. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 14(Suppl. 1): E11-E19, 2012

Prosthodontic prescriptions for mandibular implant overdentures--Part I. Dental Implantology Update 7(4): 25-28, 1996

Prosthodontic prescriptions for mandibular implant overdentures--Part II. Dental Implantology Update 7(5): 38-40, 1996