+ 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

The influence of bar design (round versus milled bar) on prosthodontic maintenance of mandibular overdentures supported by 4 implants: a 5-year prospective study



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



The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prosthodontic maintenance required for mandibular overdentures supported by 4 implants and splinted with either a round bar and resilient overdenture anchorage or a milled bar with rigid anchorage over a 5-year period. In a randomized prospective trial, 51 edentulous patients received 4 mandibular interforaminal implants to support an overdenture and maxillary complete dentures. For the implant-supported overdentures (IODs), bar architecture and denture stabilization were chosen randomly; 25 patients received round bars (group 1) and resilient anchorage and 26 patients received milled bars (group 2) and rigid anchorage. The prosthodontic maintenance required for the IODs and opposing dentures were evaluated during a 5-year follow-up period and compared between the 2 retention modalities used for IODs. Forty-six patients (22 in group 1, 24 in group 2) were available for a 5-year follow-up (dropout rate: 9.8%). Prosthodontic maintenance efforts were significantly greater (P < .01) with the round bar design (group 1) than with the overdentures stabilized with milled bars (group 2). In group 1, prosthodontic maintenance efforts were more frequent in the early phase of use (1 to 2 years), as compared with an evenly distributed incidence over the 5-year period with the rigid milled bar system. Major prosthetic complications (IOD remaking, bar fracture) were only seen in cases without metal-reinforced frameworks (group 1). When 4 interforaminal implants are used to anchor mandibular overdentures, the design of the anchorage system will significantly affect prosthodontic maintenance efforts and complication rates. Rigid anchorage using milled bars and a metal-reinforced denture framework required less prosthodontic maintenance, ie, for clip activation/fracture, than resilient denture stabilization using multiple round bars without a rigid denture framework.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 056379685

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 19149069

DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(09)60125-6


Related references

One-year prospective clinical study comparing patient satisfaction and masticatory performance of mandibular overdentures supported by one versus two implants. Journal of Applied Oral Science 26: E20160628, 2018

Mandibular overdentures supported by two Brånemark, IMZ or ITI implants: a 5-year prospective study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 31(7): 522-526, 2004

Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosseous implants. A 5-year prospective study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 16(1): 19-25, 2005

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, 2000

Removable four implant-supported mandibular overdentures rigidly retained with telescopic crowns or milled bars: a 3-year prospective study. Clinical Oral Implants Research 23(4): 481-488, 2012

Mandibular overdentures supported by 6-mm dental implants: a 1-year prospective cohort study. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 14(Suppl. 1): E59, 2012

Mandibular overdentures supported by two Brånemark, IMZ or ITI implants: a ten-year prospective randomized study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 36(9): 799-806, 2009

A prospective randomized study on the immediate loading of mandibular overdentures supported by one or two implants; a 3 year follow-up report. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 16(3): 323-329, 2014

Mandibular overdentures supported by two Brånemark, IMZ or ITI implants. A prospective comparative preliminary study: one-year results. Clinical Oral Implants Research 9(6): 374-383, 1998

Clinical and radiological investigations of mandibular overdentures supported by conventional or mini-dental implants: A 2-year prospective follow-up study. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 117(2): 239-246.E2, 2017

Immediate loading of mandibular overdentures supported by unsplinted direct laser metal-forming implants: results from a 1-year prospective study. Journal of Periodontology 83(1): 70-78, 2012

Posterior mandibular residual ridge resorption in patients with overdentures supported by two or four endosseous implants in a 10-year prospective comparative study. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants 25(6): 1168-1174, 2010

Two versus three narrow-diameter implants with locator attachments supporting mandibular overdentures: a two-year prospective study. International Journal of Dentistry 2012: 285684, 2012

Marginal bone level changes and prosthetic maintenance of mandibular overdentures supported by 2 implants: a 5-year randomized clinical trial. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 12(2): 114-121, 2010

Prosthodontic treatment, patient response, and the need for maintenance of complete implant-supported overdentures: an appraisal of 5 years of prospective study. International Journal of Prosthodontics 10(4): 345-354, 1997