LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 19 , Issue 2
March/April 2006

Pages 164–170


Implant-Supported Mandibular Overdentures Retained with Ball or Telescopic Crown Attachments: A 3-Year Prospective Study

Gerald Krennmair, MD, DMD, PhD / Michael Weinländer, MD, DMD / Martin Krainhöfner, MD, DMD / Eva Piehslinger, MD, DMD, PhD


PMID: 16602365

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to evaluate implant survival, peri-implant conditions, and prosthodontic maintenance requirements for implant-supported mandibular overdentures in atrophic mandibles retained with ball or resilient telescopic crown attachments during a 3-year period. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five patients with edentulous mandibles each received 2 Camlog root-form dental implants in the mandibular interforaminal (canine) region. The denture attachment system was chosen randomly; 13 patients received ball attachments and 12 patients received resilient telescopic crowns. Implant survival, implant mobility (Periotest values), and peri-implant conditions such as bone resorption, pocket depth, Plaque Index, Gingiva Index, Bleeding Index, and Calculus Index values were assessed for each implant. In addition, detailed prosthodontic maintenance was evaluated during the follow-up period and the 2 retention modalities were compared. Results: There were no differences in implant survival, implant mobility (Periotest values), and peri-implant conditions between the 2 retention modalities. During the 3-year period significantly more complications/interventions for maintenance purposes were registered in the ball group (62 interventions) than in the telescopic crown group (26 interventions; P < .01). Conclusion: The results indicate that both ball attachments and resilient telescopic crowns used on isolated implants in the edentulous mandible are viable treatment options. Implant success and peri-implant conditions did not differ between ball attachments and telescopic crowns used as retention modalities for implant overdentures, but the frequency of technical complications was significantly higher with ball attachments than with resilient telescopic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:164–170.


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2017 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc

IJP Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help