4.7 Article

Mini vs. Standard Implants for Mandibular Overdentures: A Randomized Trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH
Volume 94, Issue 10, Pages 1376-1384

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0022034515601959

Keywords

complete denture; edentulous mouth; minimally invasive surgical procedures; patient outcome assessment; patient satisfaction; quality of life

Funding

  1. FAPESP [11/00688-7, 11/23347-0]
  2. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [11/23347-0] Funding Source: FAPESP

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A mandibular implant-retained overdenture is considered a first-choice treatment for edentulism. However, some aspects limit the use of standard implantsfor example, the width of edentulous ridges, chronic diseases, fear, or costs. This randomized trial compared mandibular overdentures retained by 2 or 4 mini-implants with standard implants, considering oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL), patient satisfaction, and complications such as lost implant. In sum, 120 edentulous men and women (mean age, 59.5 +/- 8.5 y) randomly received 4 mini-implants, 2 mini-implants, or 2 standard implants. Participants provided data regarding OHRQoL and satisfaction until 12 mo. Clinical parameters, including implant survival rate, were also recorded. Both 2 and 4 mini-implants led to better OHRQoL, compared with 2 standard implants. Treatment with 4 mini-implants was more satisfying than 2 standard implants, with 2 mini-implants presenting intermediate results. Implant survival rate was 89%, 82%, and 99% for 4 mini-implants, 2 mini-implants, or 2 standard implants, respectively. Overdentures retained by 4 or 2 mini-implants can achieve OHRQoL and satisfaction at least comparable with that of 2 standard implants. However, the survival rate of mini implants is not as high as that of standard implants (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01411683).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available