Mandibular overdentures retained by two implants: 10-year results from a crossover clinical trial comparing ball-socket and bar-clip attachments.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and clinical and prosthetic outcomes of two-implant mandibular overdenture treatment with different attachment types after 10 years of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a crossover clinical trial, 18 edentulous subjects with complaints regarding their mandibular dentures received two implants and a new denture with magnet, ball-socket, or bar-clip attachments that were applied in a random order. At the end of the experiment, the attachment type of their choosing was fitted in the overdenture. After 10 years, 7 subjects with a ball-socket and 7 subjects with a bar-clip attachment were available for evaluation. The same questionnaire from 10 years before was completed, and subjects were asked to express their overall appreciation of their dentures on a visual analog scale (VAS). Six scales of denture complaints were constructed. Mean scale and VAS scores between initial evaluation and after 10 years were compared. In addition, marginal probing depths, Bleeding Index, and radiographic marginal bone loss were assessed. RESULTS: There was no marked difference in satisfaction between subjects with ball-socket- and bar-clip-retained two-implant mandibular overdentures at initial evaluation and after 10 years of function. CONCLUSION: Patients' appreciation of their implant-retained denture was and remained high over time. Clinical parameters revealed healthy mucosal conditions and stable marginal bone levels, determined radiographically. Probing depths around implants provided with ball-socket attachments were slightly shallower than those with bar-clip attachments after 10 years of function (P < .05).

Masticatory function with mandibular implant-supported overdentures fitted with different attachment types.

Oral Rehabilitation by means of implant-retained mandibular overdentures is known to improve the oral function. The improvement may depend on the degree of retention and stability of the denture and thus on the type of attachment. In this within-patient cross-over clinical trial, we examined the hypothesis that more retention and stability of the overdenture improves the masticatory function. Eighteen patients received two permucosal implants, a new overdenture, and, successively, three different suprastructure modalities: a magnet, a ball, and a bar-clip attachment. We quantified aspects of the oral function by measuring the electromyographic activity of the jaw muscles and the jaw movement during chewing. The muscle activity was significantly lower for the unsupported new mandibular denture compared with values for the supported new denture. No significant differences in muscle activity were observed among the three attachment types. Furthermore, we did not observe significant differences in jaw muscle activity between the old unsupported denture and the new supported denture, despite significant differences in masticatory performance. Measuring muscle activity during chewing will thus not provide adequate information about masticatory function. Thus, subjects chewed more efficiently after implant treatment. No changes in cycle duration or in jaw movement parameters were observed among the various measurement moments.

The effect of maximum bite force on marginal bone loss in mandibular overdenture treatment: an in vivo study.

The impact of bite force on the marginal bone response around implants is a subject of debate. This study focused on the effect of maximum bite force on marginal bone levels in mandibular implant overdenture treatment. In addition, the effect of the sequence of 3 different loading conditions on marginal bone loss was evaluated in vivo. The patient population consisted of a group of 18 patients. They received 2 implants in the mandible and a new denture without attachments during the period of submerged implant healing. After second stage surgery, the denture was provided with a ball, magnet or bar-clip attachment. There was a transition of attachment type after 3 and 6 months of function. The sequence in which the attachments were used was randomised. Radiographic marginal bone loss was measured after the period of submerged implant healing and after 3, 6 and 9 months of functional implant loading. Maximum bite force measurements were obtained just prior to second stage surgery with the new denture without attachment. Bite force measurements were also obtained after 3, 6 and 9 months of loading with the implant-retained overdenture. The latter 3 values were averaged. The mean bone loss during the period of submerged healing and during functional loading was 1.7 mm (0.7 mm) and 1.3 mm (0.6 mm), respectively. A relationship between maximum bite force during the period of submerged healing or during the period of functional loading on the one hand and the amount of marginal bone loss on the other could not be demonstrated. The sequence in which the different attachment types were used did not influence the observed amount of marginal bone loss.

Patient satisfaction and preference with magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket retained mandibular implant overdentures: a cross-over clinical trial.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to: (1) determine patient satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures using magnet, bar-clip, and ball-socket attachments; and (2) assess the relation between maximum bite force and patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a cross-over clinical trial, 18 edentulous patients with mandibular denture complaints received two mandibular implants and new mandibular and maxillary dentures. The mandibular denture was initially without any kind of attachment system, but it was fitted with one of the attachment types after 3 months. The attachments were changed 3 months thereafter, in random order. A questionnaire on denture complaints was administered at baseline (with the old denture), after 3 months of function with the new denture without attachments, and after 3 months of function with each of the attachments (within-subject comparison). In addition, patients were asked to express their overall appreciation of their dentures on a VAS. Patients' preferences were determined at the end of the experiment. Maximum bite forces were obtained from a previous study with the same population. Five scales of denture complaints were constructed. Mean scale and VAS scores at the five evaluation points were compared among the groups. Pearson correlation was calculated between maximum bite force and scale and VAS scores. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Mandibular implant-supported overdenture treatment reduced various denture complaints. The VAS score better reflected patients' preferences than did scale score. Patients strongly preferred bar-clip (10/18 subjects) and ball-socket attachments (7/18 subjects) over magnet attachments (1/18 subjects). Patients' preferences could not be predicted on the basis of baseline observations. Maximum bite force was not correlated to scale or VAS score. Hence, patients with higher maximum bite forces were not necessarily more satisfied.

Retention and postinsertion maintenance of bar-clip, ball and magnet attachments in mandibular implant overdenture treatment: an in vivo comparison after 3 months of function.

It could be hypothesised that attachments, which provide more retention against vertical and horizontal dislodgement, will be associated with more favourable parameters of oral function. This in vivo study is designed to provide data regarding initial retention force, loss of retention force after 3 months of function and postinsertion maintenance and complications associated with the use of magnet, bar-clip and ball attachments in mandibular overdenture treatment. Eighteen edentulous subjects received two permucosal implants in the inter-foramina region of the mandible, a new denture and three successive suprastructure modalities (magnet-, bar-clip and ball attachments). The retention force of the attachments at baseline and after 3 months was measured in a standardised way. The amount and type of postinsertion maintenance that was related to the attachment were evaluated. No differences in retention force at baseline and after 3 months of loading were observed for all three attachment types. The mean retention forces of magnet attachments, bar-clip attachments and ball attachments were 8.1, 31.3 and 29.7 N respectively. Functional maintenance complications related to the attachments were predominantly observed in 11/36 magnet attachments. Functional problems in the ball attachment group were relatively rare, easily manageable and seen in 4/36 attachments. The bar-clip attachments exhibited no maintenance problems at all.