A prospective randomized clinical study comparing implant-supported fixed prostheses and overdentures in the edentulous mandible: prosthodontic production time and costs.

Sigvard Palmqvist; Bengt Owall; Sören Schou

PubMed · 15119877

A prospective randomized clinical study comparing implant-supported fixed prostheses and overdentures in the edentulous mandible: prosthodontic production time and costs.

Sigvard Palmqvist·Bengt Owall·Sören Schou

Abstract

PURPOSE: This work compared implant-supported fixed prostheses and overdentures in the edentulous mandible in a randomized prospective study of treatment results, clinical working hours, laboratory working hours, and laboratory costs including materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen subjects agreed to participate. Three standard Brånemark implants were placed between the mental foramina in each patient. After the connection of standard abutments, subjects were randomly assigned to the fixed prosthesis group (n = 11) or overdenture group (n = 6). Subjects in the fixed group were provided with prostheses according to the All-in-One concept. Subjects in the overdenture group received a conventional denture retained by a Dolder bar system. RESULTS: One implant was lost in the fixed prosthesis group after 1 year. A new implant was placed, and the prosthesis was refitted. Mean clinical working hours were 3.1 in the fixed prosthesis group and 4.1 in the overdenture group. Mean laboratory working hours were 12.5 in the fixed prosthesis group and 7.7 in the overdenture group. Total laboratory costs, including materials, were on average about 1,700 US dollars for the fixed prosthesis and 1,350 US dollars for the overdenture. CONCLUSION: A fixed implant-supported prosthesis in the edentulous mandible could be provided at about the same cost as an overdenture using the method described. Provided that the early survival results prove to be long lasting, the choice between a fixed and a removable prosthesis need not be a matter of economy.

Explore related subjects

Dental Implantation, Endosseous Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported Dental Restoration Failure Denture, Overlay Health Care Costs Humans Jaw, Edentulous Laboratories, Dental Mandible Prospective Studies Time Factors Clinical Trial Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Sigvard Palmqvist, Bengt Owall, Sören Schou. A prospective randomized clinical study comparing implant-supported fixed prostheses and overdentures in the edentulous mandible: prosthodontic production time and costs.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15119877/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Development of a three-dimensional finite element model of a human mandible containing endosseous dental implants. II. Variables affecting the predictive behavior of a finite element model of a human mandible.

The purpose of this study was to propose a systematic approach to validate a finite element model (FEM) of the human mandible and to investigate the effects of changing the geometry and orthotropic material properties on the FEM predictions. Thirty-eight variables affecting the material properties, boundary conditions, and the geometry of a FEM of a human mandible, including two dental implants, were systematically changed, creating a number of FEMs of the mandible. The effects of the variations were quantified as differences in the principal strain magnitudes modeled by the original FEM (gold standard), prior to the sensitivity analyses, and those generated by the changed FEMs. The material properties that had the biggest impact on the predicted cortical principal strain were the shear moduli (up to 31% in difference from the unchanged state), and the absence of cancellous bone (up to 34%). Alterations to the geometry of the mandibular cross section, such as an increase in corpus dimensions, had the greatest effect on principal strain magnitudes (up to 16%). Changes in the cortical thickness in relation to the width of the corpus section modified strain more than alterations to the corpus depth (14% and 5%, respectively). The relatively small difference (up to 13.5%) between the predicted and measured interimplant distances indicates the accuracy of the FEM. Changes in geometry and orthotropic material properties could induce significant changes in strain patterns. These values must therefore be chosen with care when using finite element techniques for predicting stresses, strains, and displacements.

Dental Implantation, Endosseous↗

PubMed2006

Connecting implants to teeth.

Osseointegrated implants have proven to have a high degree of success in the edentulous arches. This success has been replicated in partially edentulous arches. When natural teeth are present, it can be tempting to fabricate restorations using support from both implants and natural teeth. The mechanism of attachment and the perceived problem of the differential support provided by the implant and the tooth have been discussed by many authors.

Dental Implantation, Endosseous↗

PubMed2006

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate-delayed and delayed implants).

BACKGROUND: Dental implants can be placed in fresh sockets just after tooth extraction. These are called 'immediate' implants. 'Immediate-delayed' implants are those implants inserted after weeks up to about a couple of months to allow for soft tissue healing. 'Delayed' implants are those placed thereafter in partially or completely healed bone. The advantages of immediate implants are that treatment time can be shortened and that bone height might be maintained thus possibly improving the aesthetic results. The potential disadvantages are an increased risk of infection and failures of the immediately placed implants. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate success, function, complications and patient satisfaction between 'immediate', 'immediate-delayed' and 'delayed' implants. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. Last electronic search was conducted on 7 August 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and preference RCT evaluating immediate, immediate-delayed, and delayed implants, reporting the outcome of the interventions to at least 1 year after functional loading. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient. MAIN RESULTS: Two RCTs were included. One RCT compared immediate implants placed in periapical infected sites versus delayed implants in 50 patients and after 1 year found no statistically significant differences. The second RCT compared immediate-delayed versus immediate implants in 46 patients. After 1 year and a half there were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed by the patient and the papilla height assessed by the dentist. However, patients in the delayed group perceiving the period between tooth extraction and insertion of the crown significantly longer than patients in the immediate-delayed group, mean difference of VAS -20.30 (95% CI -33.36 to -7.24). There was also statistically significantly higher patient satisfaction in the immediate-delayed group, mean difference (VAS) -6.51 (95% CI -12.63 to -0.39). An independent blinded assessor judged the level of the perimplant marginal mucosa in relation to that of the adjacent teeth as more appropriate in the immediate-delayed group, with risk ratio (RR) 1.68 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.72). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite that the evidence is derived from only two RCTs with a limited number of patients, it is possible to suggest that immediate implants and immediate-delayed implants may offer some advantages over conventional implants in healed sites in terms of patient satisfaction and aesthetics possibly by preserving alveolar bone. Immediate implants can work and are able to shorten treatment periods, however properly designed RCTs are still needed to fully evaluate the potential advantages and risks of this treatment modality since more complications and failures may occur.

Dental Implantation, Endosseous↗