Clinical Oral Implants Research
M. Vercruyssen, K. Marcelis, W. Coucke, I. Naert, M. Quirynen
Volume 21 Issue 4, Pages 357 - 365Objective
: This retrospective analysis evaluated the long-term outcome of two implants supporting an overdenture in the mandible, as well as the significance of some confounding factors (smoking, implant length, bone quality).
Material and methods: All mandibular overdenture cases (n=495) treated during the past 25 years in our centre (with ≥5 years loading of the implants) were included in this study. General information (medical history, implant data, report on surgery) was retrieved from the patient's file. A large number of patients (n=248) were willing to visit the clinic for an additional follow-up visit. For the others, information on implant survival was collected by phone (n=121), or contact was impossible (57 had died, three were hospitalized and 66 could not be reached). In the latter group, information was used, up to their last visit to the clinic. An implant was considered as surviving if it was still in function in the mouth, without clear adverse effects (pain, swelling, mobility). A failure was defined as early if it occurred within the window, insertion-final prosthesis placement; afterwards, it was considered as late.
Results: Most of the inserted implants (Brånemark type) were of the turned (machined) type (95.5%), the remainder was anodized (TiUnite). The anchoring system was either a bar (86.3%), ball attachments (11.7%) or magnets (1.6%), and only some patients changed from one to the other (0.4%). Kaplan–Meier analyses showed a survival rate of 95.5% after 20 years of loading. Factors that influenced the outcome included smoking (90% rate for smokers) and the surgical protocol (reduced survival rate for one-stage-placed implants). Implant length and bone quality had no impact.
Conclusions: These results fully support the two-implant overdenture concept in the mandible even in the long run.Full Abstract