Long-Term Prosthetic Aftercare of Two- vs. Four-Ball Attachment Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures
Little is reported about the prosthetic aftercare of implant-supported mandibular overdentures regarding the number of implants placed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prosthetic aftercare among edentulous patients restored with two vs. four mandibular implant-retained overdentures (MI...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2021-09-01
|
| Series: | Applied Sciences |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/19/8974 |
| _version_ | 1797516864999391232 |
|---|---|
| author | Ofir Rosner Eran Zenziper Hadas Heller Joseph Nissan Guy Melamed Shahar Har-Ness Ari Glikman Shlomo Matalon |
| author_facet | Ofir Rosner Eran Zenziper Hadas Heller Joseph Nissan Guy Melamed Shahar Har-Ness Ari Glikman Shlomo Matalon |
| author_sort | Ofir Rosner |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Little is reported about the prosthetic aftercare of implant-supported mandibular overdentures regarding the number of implants placed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prosthetic aftercare among edentulous patients restored with two vs. four mandibular implant-retained overdentures (MISOD). Forty-six consecutive edentulous patients treated by a new MISOD were retrospectively studied. Twenty-five patients had two-ball attachment MISOD (Group A), and 21 had four-ball attachment MISOD (Group B). The total amount of aftercare visits was recorded, as well as the type of treatments required (pressure sore spots relief, attachment liner replacement due to loss of retention, and metal ball attachment replacement due to wear). The mean follow-up duration was 93 ± 57 months (range 9–246 months). None of the implants was lost. There were significantly more visits for pressure sore spots relief in Group A vs. Group B (6.2 ± 2 in group A and 4.09 ± 1.54 in group B, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Differences in the other two tested parameters (number of visits for liner replacement (2.3 ± 1.84 in group A and 2.4 ± 1.63 in group B) and attachment replacement (2.36 ± 1.85 in group A vs. 2.48 ± 1.63 in group B) yielded a non-significant outcome (<i>p</i> = 0.814 for liner replacement and <i>p</i> = 1.000 for attachment replacement). The use of four-ball attachments in MISOD was more beneficial than two-ball attachments with regards to the aftercare of pressure sore spots. The number of implants did not influence the mechanical wear. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T07:06:50Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-86bfaf20966942d1895af8c1f45c6afb |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2076-3417 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T07:06:50Z |
| publishDate | 2021-09-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Applied Sciences |
| spelling | doaj.art-86bfaf20966942d1895af8c1f45c6afb2023-11-22T15:45:51ZengMDPI AGApplied Sciences2076-34172021-09-011119897410.3390/app11198974Long-Term Prosthetic Aftercare of Two- vs. Four-Ball Attachment Implant-Supported Mandibular OverdenturesOfir Rosner0Eran Zenziper1Hadas Heller2Joseph Nissan3Guy Melamed4Shahar Har-Ness5Ari Glikman6Shlomo Matalon7Department of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, IsraelDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, IsraelDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, IsraelDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, IsraelDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, IsraelDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, IsraelDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, IsraelDepartment of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel-Aviv 69978, IsraelLittle is reported about the prosthetic aftercare of implant-supported mandibular overdentures regarding the number of implants placed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prosthetic aftercare among edentulous patients restored with two vs. four mandibular implant-retained overdentures (MISOD). Forty-six consecutive edentulous patients treated by a new MISOD were retrospectively studied. Twenty-five patients had two-ball attachment MISOD (Group A), and 21 had four-ball attachment MISOD (Group B). The total amount of aftercare visits was recorded, as well as the type of treatments required (pressure sore spots relief, attachment liner replacement due to loss of retention, and metal ball attachment replacement due to wear). The mean follow-up duration was 93 ± 57 months (range 9–246 months). None of the implants was lost. There were significantly more visits for pressure sore spots relief in Group A vs. Group B (6.2 ± 2 in group A and 4.09 ± 1.54 in group B, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Differences in the other two tested parameters (number of visits for liner replacement (2.3 ± 1.84 in group A and 2.4 ± 1.63 in group B) and attachment replacement (2.36 ± 1.85 in group A vs. 2.48 ± 1.63 in group B) yielded a non-significant outcome (<i>p</i> = 0.814 for liner replacement and <i>p</i> = 1.000 for attachment replacement). The use of four-ball attachments in MISOD was more beneficial than two-ball attachments with regards to the aftercare of pressure sore spots. The number of implants did not influence the mechanical wear.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/19/8974mandibular implant overdenturenumber of implantsaftercaresore spots |
| spellingShingle | Ofir Rosner Eran Zenziper Hadas Heller Joseph Nissan Guy Melamed Shahar Har-Ness Ari Glikman Shlomo Matalon Long-Term Prosthetic Aftercare of Two- vs. Four-Ball Attachment Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures Applied Sciences mandibular implant overdenture number of implants aftercare sore spots |
| title | Long-Term Prosthetic Aftercare of Two- vs. Four-Ball Attachment Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures |
| title_full | Long-Term Prosthetic Aftercare of Two- vs. Four-Ball Attachment Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures |
| title_fullStr | Long-Term Prosthetic Aftercare of Two- vs. Four-Ball Attachment Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures |
| title_full_unstemmed | Long-Term Prosthetic Aftercare of Two- vs. Four-Ball Attachment Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures |
| title_short | Long-Term Prosthetic Aftercare of Two- vs. Four-Ball Attachment Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures |
| title_sort | long term prosthetic aftercare of two vs four ball attachment implant supported mandibular overdentures |
| topic | mandibular implant overdenture number of implants aftercare sore spots |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/19/8974 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ofirrosner longtermprostheticaftercareoftwovsfourballattachmentimplantsupportedmandibularoverdentures AT eranzenziper longtermprostheticaftercareoftwovsfourballattachmentimplantsupportedmandibularoverdentures AT hadasheller longtermprostheticaftercareoftwovsfourballattachmentimplantsupportedmandibularoverdentures AT josephnissan longtermprostheticaftercareoftwovsfourballattachmentimplantsupportedmandibularoverdentures AT guymelamed longtermprostheticaftercareoftwovsfourballattachmentimplantsupportedmandibularoverdentures AT shaharharness longtermprostheticaftercareoftwovsfourballattachmentimplantsupportedmandibularoverdentures AT ariglikman longtermprostheticaftercareoftwovsfourballattachmentimplantsupportedmandibularoverdentures AT shlomomatalon longtermprostheticaftercareoftwovsfourballattachmentimplantsupportedmandibularoverdentures |