The prosthodontic maintenance requirements of mandibular mucosa- and implant-supported overdentures: a review of the literature.

Department of Oral Rehabilitation, School of Dentistry, PO Box 647, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
The International journal of prosthodontics (Impact Factor: 1.19). 01/2000; 13(3):238-43.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This article presents a critical review of the literature on the prosthodontic maintenance requirements of mandibular mucosa- and implant-supported overdentures.
A search of the literature produced 35 papers pertaining to prospective and retrospective studies. The relationship of these prosthodontic maintenance requirements to the axis of rotation treatment concept was examined.
More often than not, 2 anterior mandibular implants either splinted (round or ovoid bars) or unsplinted (balls or magnets) have been used to evaluate this prosthodontic follow-up. Wide variation existed in the categories used for prosthodontic complications. Although principally related to alterations of overdenture contour and aspects of patrix and matrix maintenance, they also provide subjective information on relines and the rationale for avoiding overdenture fractures. These prosthodontic maintenance requirements undoubtedly have a direct impact on the time to retreatment of mandibular mucosa- and implant-supported overdentures.
There appears to be a need for a more uniform, standardized categorization with criteria for determining prosthodontic success, in terms of maintenance requirements and complications, for mandibular mucosa- and implant-supported overdentures. Controlled prospective evaluations of exact prosthodontic maintenance requirements of mandibular overdentures using different systems are lacking and encouraged. There is also an absence of prospective studies on such maintenance requirements of mandibular overdentures using multiple round bars on 3 or 4 implants.


Available from: Alan G.T. Payne, Jun 08, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the prosthodontic outcomes of one-piece zirconia implants and their attachment systems in edentulous participants with maxillary and mandibular overdentures after 1 year of a randomized controlled trial. Materials and Methods: Random allocation of 24 edentulous participants (age range: 45 to 86 years) into titanium (control) or zirconia (test) groups using onepiece implants and a planned unsplinted prosthodontic design was performed. Four maxillary implants (one midpalatal; three anterior crestal) and three mandibular implants (one midsymphyseal; two bilateral distal) were conventionally loaded with the overdentures. Similar attachment systems were used throughout: ball abutment-type patrices (diameter: 2.25 to 3.1 mm as part of the one-piece implants) and custommade plastic matrices (with or without metal housings depending on the patrix size). Prosthodontic outcomes were documented during the first year of the clinical trial. Results: Following three deaths and two dropouts, there were 19 participants who were available at the 1-year recall. Of these participants, 3 had early maxillary implant failure and had to be converted to conventional maxillary complete dentures opposing mandibular implant overdentures. There were 79 maintenance events, 34 in the titanium (control) group and 45 in the zirconia (test) group. Patrix loss occurred as a result of three zirconia implant fractures (one mandibular and two crestal maxillary implants). Maintenance events were principally the replacement of matrices and overdenture fracture. Although relines and replacement overdentures also occurred, overall there were no significant differences in prosthodontic maintenance between the control and test groups. A six-field prosthodontic-success analysis table showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups; however, 50% of participants in each group were allocated to the retreatment (repair) field, which produced a low prosthodontic success rate. Conclusions: Removable overdentures can be used on both one-piece titanium and zirconia implants with these attachment systems, due to no difference in prosthodontic maintenance and success. Before recommending routine use of a "metal-free" overdenture treatment option in clinical practice, consideration must be given to the success of the implants themselves.
    The International journal of prosthodontics 09/2014; 27(5):461-468. DOI:10.11607/ijp.3626 · 1.19 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article describes a technique for relining a mandibular bar–retained overdenture that allows recording the soft tissue beneath the bar and makes it possible to replace or modify the retentive bar attachment simultaneously with the reline procedure.
    Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 12/2014; 112(6). DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.06.027 · 1.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of implant locations on the stress around the two different attachment systems in mandibular two-implant overdentures. Materials and Methods: The data obtained from Visible Human Project were modified with the use of VRMESH and Rhinoceros 4.0 software to establish a 3D mandible model with 2 mm cortical bone covering the trabecular bone and 2 mm mucosae. 3D models (totally 6 models) of mandibular two-implant overdenture were designed according to different implant locations [lateral-lateral (LL), lateral-canine (LC), lateral-first premolar (LP)] and attachment systems [ball (BA), locator (LA)]. Foodstuff was used for occlusal loading (100N) and to simulate different biting configurations, foodstuff was positioned on incisors (anterior) and between the second premolar and first molar (posterior) bilaterally. The finite element analysis was performed by ALGOR FEMPRO software and von Mises stresses on attachments were evaluated. Results: For symmetric configuration (LL), there was more von Mises stress on BA compared to LA when foodstuff was positioned posteriorly. For asymmetric configurations (LC and LP), when the implant in the asymmetric side was positioned more posteriorly, von Mises stresses increased on both BA and LA of the implant positioned in the opposite side. In LC configuration, on BA higher von Mises stresses detected when compared to LA, whereas in LP configuration the higher stresses determined on LA when foodstuff was positioned posteriorly. Conclusions: In LL and LP configurations, LA showed lower stresses, which should lead the clinician to choose the appropriate attachment system according to the individual clinical situation.
    08/2014; 17(3):279-290. DOI:10.7126/cdj.58140.5000007133