Department of Prosthodontics, Medical University of Vienna, Austria.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011 May-Jun;26(3):598-606.
Implant success, peri-implant conditions, and prosthodontic maintenance requirements were evaluated and compared for mandibular overdentures supported by two implants and retained with ball or resilient telescopic crown attachments during a 5-year period.
Twenty-five patients with an edentulous mandible each received two root-form dental implants in the mandibular interforaminal (canine) region. The type of denture attachment was chosen randomly; 13 patients received ball attachments and 12 patients received resilient telescopic crowns. Implant success and peri-implant conditions (bone resorption, pocket depth, Plaque Index, Gingival Index, Bleeding Index) as well as prosthodontic maintenance and patient satisfaction were evaluated annually during a 5-year follow-up period and compared with respect to the two retention modalities used.
Implant success, peri-implant conditions, and subjective patient satisfaction scores did not differ between the two retention modalities used. However, during the 5-year observation period, significantly more postinsertion complications/interventions for maintenance purposes were registered in the ball group (87 interventions, 61.1%) than in the telescopic crown group (53 interventions, 37.9%; P < .01). Differences in prosthodontic maintenance efforts were most significant in the second and third years (P < .05) of the follow-up period but were similar at the end of the study for both anchorage systems.
Both ball attachments and resilient telescopic crowns on isolated implants in the atrophic mandible are viable treatment options for implant-supported overdentures. No implant losses, good peri-implant conditions, and general patient satisfaction were noted. Although the frequency of technical complications was initially higher with ball attachments than with resilient telescopic crowns over a 5-year period, similar frequencies of maintenance efforts may be anticipated for both retention modalities.
在 5 年期间,评估并比较了两种种植体支持的下颌覆盖义齿的种植体成功率、种植体周围状况和修复体维护要求,这两种种植体分别采用球附着体和弹性伸缩冠附着体固位。
25 名下颌无牙患者,在颏孔区各植入 2 枚根形种植体。义齿附着体的类型随机选择;其中 13 名患者使用球附着体,12 名患者使用弹性伸缩冠。在 5 年的随访期间,每年评估种植体成功率和种植体周围状况(骨吸收、探诊深度、菌斑指数、龈炎指数、出血指数)以及修复体维护和患者满意度,并比较两种固位方式的结果。
两种固位方式的种植体成功率、种植体周围状况和患者主观满意度评分无差异。然而,在 5 年观察期内,球附着体组(87 次干预,61.1%)的植入后并发症/维护干预明显多于弹性伸缩冠组(53 次干预,37.9%;P<.01)。在随访期的第 2 年和第 3 年(P<.05),修复体维护工作的差异最为显著,但在研究结束时,两种锚固系统的差异相似。
在萎缩下颌的孤立种植体上使用球附着体和弹性伸缩冠都是可选择的治疗方案,用于覆盖义齿。两种固位方式均未发生种植体丢失,种植体周围状况良好,患者总体满意度高。虽然在 5 年期间,球附着体的技术并发症频率最初高于弹性伸缩冠,但两种附着体的维护频率可能相似。