Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Summary Review
  • Published:

Is the implant-retained overdenture a solution to improve the patient quality of life?

Evidence-Based Dentistry volume 23, pages 122–123 (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

Design The research was a retrospective cohort study evaluating a study which performed routine control sessions to assess bone loss around the dental implant over five years and 12 and 24 months, after their prosthetic restorations.

Aim The study aimed to evaluate patients' dental implant marginal bone loss after oral rehabilitation with bar and locator retainers and their possible complications.

Methods A study of 114 patients who had received 283 dental implants from 2013-2018 was conducted. Two follow-up recall sessions were conducted, one at 12 months and one at 24 months, after dentures were placed. Intraoral and extraoral examinations were also conducted in addition to clinical assessments. The patients' prostheses were assessed for occlusion, tissue health and soft-tissue continuity, complaints, implant success rates and marginal bone loss, in addition to prosthetic complications, at follow-up sessions.

Results In this study, 94 patients were fitted with implant-supported removable prostheses on locator attachments on both arches and 20 were fitted with removable prostheses using bar attachments. After evaluating the location of the implant, the number of days after implantation and the type of retainer in all patients, both groups showed a significant amount of marginal bone loss in the 12th and 24th months. The presence of complications was significantly associated with both prosthesis types at month 24 (p >0.05). When the relation between the position of the denture and the presence of complications at month 12 was evaluated, 36% of the complications were observed in the maxilla and 21.3% in the mandible. There was no significant difference associated between denture location and complication presence at month 24 (p >0.05).

Conclusions Even though complications do not affect marginal bone loss, a patient's failure to maintain adequate oral hygiene results in marginal bone loss. Therefore, it appears that regular post-treatment prosthesis inspections are essential. If the requirements resulting from these inspections are satisfied, future complications may be prevented.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ewers R, Seemann R, Krennmair G et al. Planning implants crown down - a systematic quality control for proof of concept. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010; 68: 2868-2878.

  2. De Almeida Barros Mourão C, Machado A N, Casado P. Is a digital surgical guide superior for implant placement in the first molars areas? Evid Based Dent 2022; 23: 58-59.

  3. Fadhıl S M T, Mumcu E. Maintenance requirements and marginal bone loss associated with implant-retained overdentures: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Investig 2022; 26: 4735-4742.

  4. Huang Y, Dessel J V, Depypere M et al. Validating cone-beam computed tomography for peri-implant bone morphometric analysis. Bone Res 2014; DOI: 10.1038/boneres.2014.10.

  5. Eskandarloo A, Arabi R, Bidgoli M, Yousefi F, Poorolajal J. Association between Marginal Bone Loss and Bone Quality at Dental Implant Sites Based on Evidence from Cone Beam Computed Tomography and Periapical Radiographs. Contemp Clin Dent 2019; 10: 36-41.

  6. Lim Y-W, Lim Y-J, Kim B, Lee S-P. A New Method of Measuring the Volumetric Change of Alveolar Bone Around Dental Implants Using Computed Tomography. J Clin Med 2020; 9: 1238.

  7. Song D, Shujaat S, de Faria Vasconcelos K et al. Diagnostic accuracy of CBCT versus intraoral imaging for assessment of peri-implant bone defects. BMC Med Imaging 2021; 21: 23.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Research Unit, Antônio Pedro University Hospital, Fluminense Federal University, Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Carlos Fernando Mourão

  2. Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA

    Thomas J. Han

Authors
  1. Carlos Fernando Mourão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas J. Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mourão, C., Han, T. Is the implant-retained overdenture a solution to improve the patient quality of life?. Evid Based Dent 23, 122–123 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-022-0817-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-022-0817-y

Search

Advanced search

Quick links