SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Annals of Medical Research / 2019 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 12

A retrospective analysis of dental implants in patients who received a mandibular overdenture with locator attachment

Özge PARLAR OZ
Nermin DEMİRKOL
Pages
2841–2846
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The anatomicallocations, diameter and length characteristics and rate of loss of the implants were analyzed by way of descriptive statistical analysis.Results: Of 138 patients, 69 were female (50%) and 69 were male (50%), and a total number of 276 dental implants were evaluated.When distribution of these implants was examined, it was found that they were mostly placed in the region of 33-43 (94.2%).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The objective of this study is to retrospectively examine the relative superiorities of mandibular overdenture dental implants interms of diameter, length, age and sex, and to determine the rate of implant survival.Material and Methods: The demographic data showing the age, sex and dental implant distribution by age of 138 patients whounderwent dental implant treatment at our clinic between 2011 and 2016 were retrieved from the archival records.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The anatomicallocations, diameter and length characteristics and rate of loss of the implants were analyzed by way of descriptive statistical analysis.Results: Of 138 patients, 69 were female (50%) and 69 were male (50%), and a total number of 276 dental implants were evaluated.When distribution of these implants was examined, it was found that they were mostly placed in the region of 33-43 (94.2%).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The rate of implant survival wasfound to be 97.8%.Conclusion: The mandibular two-implant retained overdenture prosthesis with a locator attachment is a successful treatmentmethod with a high survival rate when factors such as diameter and length of the implant and age and sex of the patient are takeninto consideration.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2011 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: The objective of this study is to retrospectively examine the relative superiorities of mandibular overdenture dental implants interms of diameter, length, age and sex, and to determine the rate of implant survival.Material and Methods: The demographic data showing the age, sex and dental implant distribution by age of 138 patients whounderwent dental implant treatment at our clinic between 2011 and 2016 were retrieved from the archival records. Patients whounderwent mandibular overdenture with two implant-supported locater attachments were included in the study. The anatomicallocations, diameter and length characteristics and rate of loss of the implants were analyzed by way of descriptive statistical analysis.Results: Of 138 patients, 69 were female (50%) and 69 were male (50%), and a total number of 276 dental implants were evaluated.When distribution of these implants was examined, it was found that they were mostly placed in the region of 33-43 (94.2%). Themean age of the patients was 63 with an age range of 40 to 87 years. It was found that the dental implants were applied mostly inpatients ranging in age from 60 to 69 years (52.8%). The most common implant diameters were 4 mm (18%), 4.2 mm (18%) and 4.5mm (17%), respectively. The most common implant lengths were 12 mm (32%) and 14 mm (30%). The rate of implant survival wasfound to be 97.8%.Conclusion: The mandibular two-implant retained overdenture prosthesis with a locator attachment is a successful treatmentmethod with a high survival rate when factors such as diameter and length of the implant and age and sex of the patient are takeninto consideration.

🔖

Cite This Article

OZ, Ö. P., DEMİRKOL, N. (2022). A retrospective analysis of dental implants in patients who received a mandibular overdenture with locator attachment. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 12, 2841–2846. https://ajindex.com/articles/444528

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Vogel R, Smith-Palmer J, Valentine W. Evaluating the health economic implications and cost-effectiveness of dental implants: a literature review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:343-56
  2. Krennmair G, Seemann R, Fazekas A, et al. Patient preference and satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or locator attachments: a crossover clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:1560-8
  3. Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, et al. The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. Gerodontology 2002;19:3-4
  4. Ellis JS, Burawi G, Walls A, et al. Patient satisfaction with two designs of implant supported removable overdentures; ball attachment and magnets. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009;20:1293-8
  5. Awad MA, Lund JP, Shapiro SH, et al. Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:390-6
  6. Bueno-Samper A, Hernandez-Aliaga M, Calvo-Guirado JL. The implant- supported milled bar overdenture: a literature review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15:e375-8
  7. Boven GC, Meijer HJA, Vissink A, et al. Maxillary implant overdentures retained by use of bars or locator attachments: 1-year findings from a randomized controlled trial. J Prosthodont Res. Published Online: Jun 11, 2019
  8. Cristache CM, Muntianu LAS, Burlibasa M, et al. Five year clinical trial using three attachment systems for implant overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:e171-e8
  9. Cordaro L, di Torresanto VM, Petricevic N, et al. Single unit attachments improve peri implant soft tissue conditions in mandibular overdentures supported by four implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:536-42
  10. Watson GK, Payne AGT, Purton DG, et al. Mandibular overdentures: comparative evaluation of prosthodontic maintenance of three different implant systems during the first year of service. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:259-66
  11. Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, et al. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 2004;13:221-6
  12. Cakarer S, Can T, Yaltirik M, et al. Complications associated with the ball, bar and Locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2011;16:e953-9
  13. Kronstrom M, Carlsson GE. An international survey among prosthodontists of