de Resende Gabriela Pereira, de Menezes Eunice Ellen Gontijo, Maniewicz Sabrina, Srinivasan Murali, Leles Cláudio Rodrigues
Department of Oral Rehabilitation, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Goias, Goiania, Brazil.
Division of Gerodontology and Removable Prosthodontics, University Clinics of Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023 Mar;34(3):233-242. doi: 10.1111/clr.14036. Epub 2023 Feb 2.
To assess the incidence of prosthodontic maintenance events and complications during 4 years of follow-up after mandibular overdenture treatment with one or two implants.
Participants received one or two implants inserted in the midline (1-IOD group) or the lateral incisor-canine area bilaterally (2-IOD group). Implants were loaded with an early loading protocol after 3 weeks. Programmed recall visits were scheduled at the 6-, 12-, 36-, and 48-month follow-ups and nonprogrammed visits in case of prosthodontic complaints. The type of maintenance was registered, and the final treatment outcome was classified as successful, surviving, unknown, dead, repair, or retreatment.
Forty-seven participants, mean age 65.4 ± 8.6, 74.5% female, were included (1-IOD = 23; 2-IOD = 24) and 44 completed the 4-year follow-up. A total of 159 prosthodontic maintenance events occurred and 89 in unscheduled visits. The most common event was the need for minor modifications of the denture base due to sore spots in the oral mucosa (n = 56 in 31 patients), matrix activation (n = 54 in 34 patients), and overdenture fracture (n = 25 in 18 patients). A "successful" or "surviving" outcome could be attributed to 57.5% of cases, whereas 38.3% needed repair. No significant differences in the incidence of prosthodontic events or treatment outcomes were found between the two groups.
Findings show that 1-IODs perform similar to 2-IODs when considering the incidence of fractures and the need for prosthodontic maintenance, including adjustments of the overdenture and the attachment system.
评估在下颌覆盖义齿采用一枚或两枚种植体治疗后的4年随访期间，口腔修复维护事件及并发症的发生率。
参与者在中线处植入一枚或两枚种植体（1-种植体覆盖义齿组）或双侧侧切牙-尖牙区域植入（2-种植体覆盖义齿组）。3周后采用早期负载方案对种植体进行加载。在6个月、12个月、36个月和48个月随访时安排定期复诊，出现口腔修复相关主诉时安排不定期复诊。记录维护类型，最终治疗结果分为成功、存留、未知、失败、修复或再治疗。
纳入47名参与者，平均年龄65.4±8.6岁，74.5%为女性（1-种植体覆盖义齿组=23例；2-种植体覆盖义齿组=24例），44例完成了4年随访。共发生159次口腔修复维护事件，其中89次为不定期复诊时发生。最常见的事件是由于口腔黏膜疼痛点需要对义齿基托进行微小调整（31例患者中56次）、基质激活（34例患者中54次）和覆盖义齿折断（18例患者中25次）。57.5%的病例可归因于“成功”或“存留”结果，而38.3%的病例需要修复。两组间口腔修复事件发生率或治疗结果无显著差异。
研究结果表明，在考虑折断发生率和口腔修复维护需求（包括覆盖义齿和附着系统调整）时，一枚种植体覆盖义齿与两枚种植体覆盖义齿表现相似。
