4.5 Article

Implant-retained mandibular overdentures with ITI implants - A comparison of 2-year results between delayed and immediate loading

期刊

CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 495-501

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130508.x

关键词

dental implants; edentulous mandible; endosseus implants; immediate loading; mandibular prosthesis; non-submerged; osseointegration; overdenture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This prospective study has been designed to compare the results of immediate and delayed loading of implant-retained mandibular overdentures after a 2-year follow-up. Twenty patients have been randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 patients (test group) received four ITI implants in the intraforaminal area of the mandible. Octa(R) abutments were immediately screwed on implants; 2 days after surgery, the implants were rigidly connected with a U-shaped Dolder gold bar and loaded with an overdenture. Group 2 patients (control group) received, in the same area, the same type and number of implants, which were left to heal according to the standard protocol. At 3-4 months, Octa abutments were screwed on the implants and the same prosthetic procedure of the test group was applied. The minimum follow-up period lasted 2 years, with recall appointments at 2 weeks, 1, 3, 6 months, 1 year and every following year postoperatively, evaluating: MPI, MBI, PD, Periotest(R) and radiographic peri-implant bone resorption. Success criteria according to Albrektsson et al. were used. Only one implant out of the 40 of group 2 failed, whereas none failed in group 1. No statistical difference of the clinical parameters evaluated was noticed in the two groups. Therefore, immediate loading of implants, if connected with a U-shaped bar, can provide the same results of the 'traditional' technique as far as osseointegration and short-term survival rates of implants are concerned. Moreover, this method significantly shortens the treatment period, thus increasing patient satisfaction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据