4.3 Article

Marginal Bone Loss around Implant-Retaining Overdentures versus Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses 12-Month Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19031750

Keywords

non-submerged dental implant; marginal bone loss; radiographic bone-implant interface contact; implant-retained overdenture; implant-supported fixed prosthesis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compared the marginal bone loss and bone-implant interface contact between implant-retaining overdentures and implant-supported fixed prostheses. The results showed that the overdenture group had higher bone loss, while the fixed prosthesis group had better bone-implant interface contact.
Few studies have compared marginal bone loss (MBL) around implant-retaining overdentures (IODs) vs. implant-supported fixed prostheses (FPs). This study evaluated the mean MBL and radiographic bone-implant interface contact (r-BIIC) around IODs and implant-supported FPs. We also investigated osseointegration and MBL around non-submerged dental implants. We measured the changes between the MBL in the mesial and distal sites immediately after prosthetic delivery and after one year. The mean MBL and its changes in the IOD group were significantly higher. The mean percentage of r-BIIC was significantly higher in the FP group. MBL and its changes in males were significantly higher in the IOD group. The percentage of r-BIIC was significantly higher in the FP group. MBL in the lower site in the IOD group was significantly higher. Regarding MBL, the location of the implant was the only significant factor in the IOD group, while gender was the only significant predictor in the FP group. Regarding the r-BIIC percentage, gender was a significant factor in the FP group. We concluded that non-submerged dental implants restored with FPs and IODs maintained stable bone remodeling one year after prosthetic delivery.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available