Share Page:

Volume 28 , Issue 3
May/June 2013

Pages 824–830

Early-Loaded One-Stage Implants Retaining Mandibular Overdentures by Two Different Mechanisms: 5-Year Results

Kivanc Akca, DDS, PhD/Yeliz Cavusoglu, DDS, PhD/Elcin Sagirkaya, DDS, PhD/Murat Cavit Cehreli, DDS, PhD

PMID: 23748315
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.2994

Purpose: To compare the biologic and prosthetic outcomes of implants loaded early to retain mandibular overdentures by means of two different attachment systems. Materials and Methods: Patients were screened according to specific inclusion/exclusion criteria and randomly allocated to treatment groups involving two-implant–supported early loaded mandibular overdentures retained by ball attachments or Locator attachments. Marginal bone loss, Plaque Index, peri-implant infection, Bleeding Index, prosthetic complications, and Kaplan-Meier survival estimates of the groups were assessed at the 5-year recall. Results: Among the 29 patients (58 implants) who completed the study, one implant was lost during healing; all implants survived after prosthesis delivery. Bone loss in the ball attachment group (0.77 ± 0.05 mm) was significantly greater than that in the Locator group (0.59 ± 0.03 mm). The Plaque and Bleeding indices of both groups were comparable, and peri-implant inflammation scores in both groups were zero for all implants. The frequencies of activation of the matrix, replacement of the matrix, and denture reline in the ball attachment group were significantly higher than those observed in the Locator group. While assessments for the absence of any complication showed that the 1- and 3-year Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities of both groups were comparable, when activation of the retainer was excluded, survival probabilities of the ball attachment group were higher. Conclusions: The biologic outcomes of early loaded mandibular overdentures retained by ball attachments or Locators were comparable. Although the frequency of prosthetic complications with ball attachments was higher, this did not decrease the survival probability for the treatment. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:824–830. doi: 10.11607/jomi.2994

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 JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Author Guidelines
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us