Clinical Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Implant Overdentures using a Milled Bar and Solitary Attachment Combination
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of milled-bar and solitary attachment combination-supported prostheses in partially and fully edentulous patients with a follow-up period of more than one year. Materials and Methods: Patient information, dental records, and X-ray images were provided by an information technology specialist at Pusan National University Dental Hospital without personal data. Definitive prosthetic types and occlusal schemes were classified, along with categorization of the number and types of implants inserted. Additionally, cumulative survival rates were evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier method and marginal bone loss was assessed using panoramic radiographs and fixture length information. Various complications that occurred during the post-prosthetic restoration follow-up examinations were collected and categorized. Results: A total of 74 cases were included in this study, involving 68 patients. Among them, six patients had both maxillary and mandibular arches restored using milled-bar and solitary attachments. The cumulative survival rate for all implants was 92.5%. There was no statistically significant difference between the follow-up period and marginal bone loss around the implants. The most common complication after prosthetic restoration was the replacement of solitary attachment supplements, followed by issues related to the prostheses and problems related to the milled bar. Conclusion: Thus, with respect to prosthetic restoration using a small number of implants with milled bars and solitary attachments, satisfactory clinical outcomes were achieved without marginal bone loss around the implants.
Abstract
Purpose: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of milled-bar and solitary attachment combination-supported prostheses in partially and fully edentulous patients with a follow-up period of more than one year. Materials and Methods: Patient information, dental records, and X-ray images were provided by an information technology specialist at Pusan National University Dental Hospital without personal data. Definitive prosthetic types and occlusal schemes were classified, along with categorization of the number and types of implants inserted. Additionally, cumulative survival rates were evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier method and marginal bone loss was assessed using panoramic radiographs and fixture length information. Various complications that occurred during the post-prosthetic restoration follow-up examinations were collected and categorized. Results: A total of 74 cases were included in this study, involving 68 patients. Among them, six patients had both maxillary and mandibular arches restored using milled-bar and solitary attachments. The cumulative survival rate for all implants was 92.5%. There was no statistically significant difference between the follow-up period and marginal bone loss around the implants. The most common complication after prosthetic restoration was the replacement of solitary attachment supplements, followed by issues related to the prostheses and problems related to the milled bar. Conclusion: Thus, with respect to prosthetic restoration using a small number of implants with milled bars and solitary attachments, satisfactory clinical outcomes were achieved without marginal bone loss around the implants.