Comparative study of prosthetic complications associated with the bar-clip, milled bar, and Locator attachments for implant overdentures: a retrospective study
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare the type and frequency of prosthetic complications associated with attachment types for implant overdenture. Material and methods. In this retrospective study, 38 patients (mean age, 63.5 years) have been treated with implant overdentures from 2007 to 2014. Ten patients received a bar-clip attachment. Eleven patients had received a milled bar with Locator attachment. Seventeen patients had received a Locator attachment. The mean follow-up period was 36.9 months (range, 15-83 months). The type and frequency of prosthetic complications was recorded. The frequency was analyzed to determine the statistical difference among the 3 different attachments by using one-way ANOVA ( = .05) and Bonferroni post hoc method at a 5% level of significance. Results. The total number of prosthetic complications was higher in the bar-clip attachment (55 events) than in the milled bar with Locator attachment (39 events) and the Locator attachment (34 events). There were no statistically significant differences, and the most common prosthetic complication was the loss of retention. In the bar-clip attachment group, the average frequency of prosthetic complications was 3.0 events per prosthesis during the first year. In the milled bar with Locator attachment and Locator attachment groups, the average frequencies were 1.45 events and 2.35 events, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed in the frequency of the complication. (p = .043) Conclusions. Compared to the bar-clip attachment, implant overdentures that use milled bars with the Locator attachment have a significantly lower incidence of prosthetic complications in the first year of follow-up after placement.
Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study was to compare the type and frequency of prosthetic complications associated with attachment types for implant overdenture. Material and methods. In this retrospective study, 38 patients (mean age, 63.5 years) have been treated with implant overdentures from 2007 to 2014. Ten patients received a bar-clip attachment. Eleven patients had received a milled bar with Locator attachment. Seventeen patients had received a Locator attachment. The mean follow-up period was 36.9 months (range, 15-83 months). The type and frequency of prosthetic complications was recorded. The frequency was analyzed to determine the statistical difference among the 3 different attachments by using one-way ANOVA ( = .05) and Bonferroni post hoc method at a 5% level of significance. Results. The total number of prosthetic complications was higher in the bar-clip attachment (55 events) than in the milled bar with Locator attachment (39 events) and the Locator attachment (34 events). There were no statistically significant differences, and the most common prosthetic complication was the loss of retention. In the bar-clip attachment group, the average frequency of prosthetic complications was 3.0 events per prosthesis during the first year. In the milled bar with Locator attachment and Locator attachment groups, the average frequencies were 1.45 events and 2.35 events, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed in the frequency of the complication. (p = .043) Conclusions. Compared to the bar-clip attachment, implant overdentures that use milled bars with the Locator attachment have a significantly lower incidence of prosthetic complications in the first year of follow-up after placement.
참고문헌 (27)
- Dudic A, "Retention mechanisms and prosthetic complications of implant-supported mandibular overdentures: long-term results", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 4(4), pp.212~219 (2002)
- Attard NJ, "Long-term treatment outcomes in edentulous patients with implant overdentures:the Toronto study", Int J Prosthodont, 17(4), pp.425~433 (2004)
- Alsabeeha NH, "Attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: a review of in vitro investigations on retention and wear features", Int J Prosthodont, 22(5), pp.429~440 (2009)
- Evtimovska E, "The change in retentive values of locator attachments and hader clips over time", J Prosthodont, 18(6), pp.479~483 (2009)
- Tabata LF, "Comparison of single-standing or connected implants on stress distribution in bone of mandibular overdentures: a two-dimensional finite element analysis", J Craniofac Surg, 21(3), pp.696~702 (2010)
- Sadowsky SJ, "Mandibular implant-retained overdentures : a literature review", J Prosthet Dent, 86(5), pp.468~473 (2001)
- Payne AG, "Mandibular implantsupported overdentures: a prospective evaluation of the burden of prosthodontic maintenance with 3different attachment systems", Int J Prosthodont, 13(3), pp.246~253 (2000)
- Gotfredsen K, "Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or bar attachments: a randomized prospective 5-year study", Int J Prosthodont, 13(3), pp.125~130 (2000)
- Hebel KS, "Implant position record and implant position cast: minimizing errors, procedures and patient visits in the fabrication of the milled-bar prosthesis", J Prosthet Dent, 83(1), pp.107~116 (2000)
- Tipton PA, "The milled bar-retained removable bridge implant-supported prosthesis: a treatment alternative for the edentulous maxilla", J Esthet Restor Dent, 14(4), pp.208~216 (2002)
- Trakas T, "Attachment systems for implant retained overdentures: a literature review", Implant Dent, 15(1), pp.24~34 (2006)
- Alsiyabi AS, "The role of abutment-attachment selection in resolving inadequate interarch distance: a clinical report", J Prosthodont, 14(3), pp.184~190 (2005)
- Lee CK, "Surgical and prosthetic planning for a two-implant-retained mandibular overdenture:a clinical report", J Prosthet Dent, 95(2), pp.102~105 (2006)
- Chang H, "Long-term survival rate of implant-supported overdentures with various attachment systems: A 20-year retrospective study", Journal of Dental Sciences, 10(1), pp.55~60 (2015)
- Hemmings KW, "Complications and maintenance requirements for fixed prostheses and overdentures in the edentulous mandible: a 5-year report", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 9(2), pp.191~196 (1994)
- Krennmair G, "Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with a milled bar: a retrospective study", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 22(6), pp.987~994 (2007)
- Cakarer S, "Complications associated with the ball, bar and Locator attachments for implant-supported overdentures", Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, 16(7), pp.e953~e959 (2011)
- Bilhan H, "A quality-oflife comparison between self-aligning and ball attachment systems for 2-implant-retained mandibular overdentures", J Oral Implantol, 37, pp.167~173 (2011)
- Cordaro L, "Single unit attachments improve peri-implant soft tissue conditions in mandibular overdentures supported by four implants", Clin Oral Implants Res, 24(2), pp.536~542 (2013)
- Walton JN, "A prospective study on the maintenance of implant prostheses in private practice", Int J Prosthodont, 10(5), pp.453~458 (1997)
- Langer A, "Telescope retainers for removable partial dentures", J Prosthet Dent, 45(1), pp.37~43 (1981)
- Goodacre CJ, "Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses", J Prosthet Dent, 90(2), pp.121~132 (2003)
- Misch CE, "Consideration of biomechanical stress in treatment with dental implants", Dent Today, 25(5), pp.80~85 (2006)
- Choi M, "Resinous denture base fracture resistance: effects of thickness and teeth", Int J Prosthodont, 25(1), pp.53~59 (2012)
- Mackie A, "Mandibular two-implant overdentures: three-year prosthodontic maintenance using the locator attachment system", Int J Prosthodont, 24(4), pp.328~331 (2011)
- Kleis WK, "A comparison of three different attachment systems for mandibular two-implant overdentures: one-year report", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 12(3), pp.209~218 (2010)
- Payne AG, "The prosthodontic maintenance requirements of mandibular mucosaand implant-supported overdentures : a review of the literature", Int J Prosthodont, 13(3), pp.238~243 (2000)