LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 9 , Issue 5
September/October 1994

Pages 548-555


A Comparative Evaluation of Some Outcome Measures of Implant Systems and Suprastructure Types in Mandibular Implant-Overdenture Treatment

Marco S. Cune, DDS, PhD/Cornelis de Putter, DDS, PhD

The purpose of this study was to determine whether differences in implant survival, health of the peri-implant tissues, and/or the level of oral hygiene could be observed among five implant systems and, further, two suprastructure modalities in mandibular implant-overdenture treatment. The implant systems included were Bonefit ITI (n = 71 patients), IMZ (n = 150 patients), Brånemark (n = 47 patients), Screw-Vent (n = 35 patients), and Bosker TMI (n = 27 patients), with a mean observation period of 21.2 months (SD 8.8) after implantation. The implants were either nonconnected (n = 72 patients) or connected (n = 255 patients). For statistical reasons, one implant for each patient was randomly selected and processed for data analysis. The health of the peri-implant tissues was assessed on a four-point scale at four sites for each implant and the oral hygiene was assessed dichotomously, by two independent observers. The interobserver agreement was considered acceptable with Cohen’s kappa 0.62 and 0.68 respectively. With regard to implant survival and oral hygiene, no major differences could be observed, both among implant systems and between the suprastructure types. The health of the peri-implant tissues surrounding Bonefit ITI implants appeared somewhat healthier when compared to the other implants, especially at mesial sites (P = .02). No statistically significant differences in health of peri-implant tissues for any of the sites could be demonstrated between implants that were and implants that were not connected. It was concluded that for the three outcome measures implant survival, health of the peri-implant tissues, and oral hygiene, differences between implant systems and differences among suprastructure types in mandibular overdenture treatment were small and probably not clinically relevant. ( INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 1994;9:548-555)

Key words: clinical study, dental implants, overdentures, suprastructures


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