LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 18 , Issue 4
July/August 2003

Pages 582–588


Provisional Implants for Anchoring Removable Interim Prostheses in Edentulous Jaws: A Clinical Study

Gerald Krennmair, MD, DMD, PhD/Michael Weinländer, MD, DMD/Stefan Schmidinger, MD, DMD


PMID: 12939013

Purpose: The behavior of provisional implants in edentulous maxillae/mandibles used for anchoring removable interim overdentures was followed for the time of the intended healing of the definitive implants. Materials and Methods: Twenty-eight edentulous arches (19 maxillae, 9 mandibles) were provided with 77 provisional implants (2 to 4 in maxillae; 2 or 3 in mandibles) for anchoring removable interim prostheses (overdentures). The provisional implants were to be maintained until final restoration (6 to 9 months in the maxilla and 3 months in the mandible). The loss rate of provisional implants and handling and behavior of the anchored overdenture were monitored until the definitive prosthetic restoration was placed. Results: Twenty-three (29.8%) of the 77 provisional implants were lost prematurely. The loss rate of maxillary provisional implants (21/58; 36.2%) was significantly higher than that of mandibular implants (2/19; 10.5%) (P  .01). Determination of terminal stability (by means of the Periotest) of the provisional implants showed higher stability in the mandible (+3.8 ± 2.3) than in the maxilla (+8.6 ± 3.9) (P  .05). In obvious contrast to mandibular interim overdentures, handling of maxillary interim overdentures was found to improve significantly during the follow-up period (P  .01). Discussion and Conclusion: With both the low loss rate in the mandible and the higher loss rate seen in the maxilla, placement of provisional implants fulfills the requirements for initiating immediate prosthetic rehabilitation. The removable interim overdenture can be adequately stabilized and provides for added patient comfort and satisfaction as compared to a conventional complete denture. An important aspect of the continued use of provisional implants concerns the expectations placed in these implants by both clinician and patient, which are quite different than those for definitive implants. (INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2003;18:582–588)


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.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI 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