Implant-supported overdentures with different bar designs: A retrospective evaluation after 5-19 years of clinical function

Rinke, Sven,Rasing, Hajo,Gersdorff, Nikolaus,Buergers, Ralf,Roediger, Matthias The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics 2015 The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Vol.7 No.4

PURPOSE. This retrospective study evaluated the outcome of implant-retained overdentures (IODs) after 5-19 years of clinical function. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A retrospective analysis of patient files was performed referring to 27 patients who received 36 IODs with 3 different bar designs (group A=prefabricated round bars, n=7; group B=one-piece anterior milled bars, n=20; and group C=two bilaterally placed milled bars, n=9) in the mandible (n=24) and/or in the maxilla (n=12). The analysis focused on the survival and success rates (according to Kaplan-Meier) of the implants and prostheses. Technical complication rates for each type of restoration were analyzed and compared via one-way ANOVA and the Chi-squared test. The prevalence of peri-implantitis (radiographic bone loss ${\geq}3.5mm$) was evaluated by digital analysis of panoramic radiographs taken postoperative (baseline) and after 5-19 years of clinical function (follow-up). RESULTS. The mean observational time was 7.3 years. The survival rates of the prostheses and implants were 100% and 97.7%, respectively. Technical complications occurred more frequently in group A (mean: 3.5 during observational time) than in the other two groups (B: 0.8; C: 1.0). However, this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.58). Peri-implantitis was diagnosed for 12.4% of the implants in 37% of the patients. CONCLUSION. Bar-retained IODs are an adequate treatment option for edentulous jaws. These restorations may exhibit high implant/prosthesis survival rates (>97%), and a limited incidence of technical complications after a mean observational period of >7 years. Nevertheless, peri-implantitis was identified as a frequent and serious biological complication for this type of reconstruction.

Implant-supported overdentures with different bar designs: A retrospective evaluation after 5-19 years of clinical function

Sven Rinke,Hajo Rasing,Nikolaus Gersdorff,Ralf Buergers,Matthias Roediger 대한치과보철학회 2015 The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Vol.7 No.4

PURPOSE. This retrospective study evaluated the outcome of implant-retained overdentures (IODs) after 5-19 years of clinical function. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A retrospective analysis of patient files was performed referring to 27 patients who received 36 IODs with 3 different bar designs (group A=prefabricated round bars, n=7; group B=one-piece anterior milled bars, n=20; and group C=two bilaterally placed milled bars, n=9) in the mandible (n=24) and/or in the maxilla (n=12). The analysis focused on the survival and success rates (according to Kaplan-Meier) of the implants and prostheses. Technical complication rates for each type of restoration were analyzed and compared via one-way ANOVA and the Chi-squared test. The prevalence of peri-implantitis (radiographic bone loss ≥3.5 mm) was evaluated by digital analysis of panoramic radiographs taken postoperative (baseline) and after 5-19 years of clinical function (follow-up). RESULTS. The mean observational time was 7.3 years. The survival rates of the prostheses and implants were 100% and 97.7%, respectively. Technical complications occurred more frequently in group A (mean: 3.5 during observational time) than in the other two groups (B: 0.8; C: 1.0). However, this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.58). Peri-implantitis was diagnosed for 12.4% of the implants in 37% of the patients. CONCLUSION. Bar-retained IODs are an adequate treatment option for edentulous jaws. These restorations may exhibit high implant/prosthesis survival rates (>97%), and a limited incidence of technical complications after a mean observational period of >7 years. Nevertheless, peri-implantitis was identified as a frequent and serious biological complication for this type of reconstruction.

Implant-supported overdentures with different bar designs: A retrospective evaluation after 5-19 years of clinical function

Sven Rinke,Hajo Rasing,Nikolaus Gersdorff,Ralf Buergers,Matthias Roediger 대한치과보철학회 2015 The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Vol.7 No.4

PURPOSE This retrospective study evaluated the outcome of implant-retained overdentures (IODs) after 5-19 years of clinical function. MATERIALS AND METHODS A retrospective analysis of patient files was performed referring to 27 patients who received 36 IODs with 3 different bar designs (group A=prefabricated round bars, n=7; group B=one-piece anterior milled bars, n=20; and group C=two bilaterally placed milled bars, n=9) in the mandible (n=24) and/or in the maxilla (n=12). The analysis focused on the survival and success rates (according to Kaplan-Meier) of the implants and prostheses. Technical complication rates for each type of restoration were analyzed and compared via one-way ANOVA and the Chi-squared test. The prevalence of peri-implantitis (radiographic bone loss ≥3.5 mm) was evaluated by digital analysis of panoramic radiographs taken post-operative (baseline) and after 5-19 years of clinical function (follow-up). RESULTS The mean observational time was 7.3 years. The survival rates of the prostheses and implants were 100% and 97.7%, respectively. Technical complications occurred more frequently in group A (mean: 3.5 during observational time) than in the other two groups (B: 0.8; C: 1.0). However, this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.58). Peri-implantitis was diagnosed for 12.4% of the implants in 37% of the patients. CONCLUSION Bar-retained IODs are an adequate treatment option for edentulous jaws. These restorations may exhibit high implant/prosthesis survival rates (>97%), and a limited incidence of technical complications after a mean observational period of >7 years. Nevertheless, peri-implantitis was identified as a frequent and serious biological complication for this type of reconstruction

Evaluation of removal forces of implant-supported zirconia copings depending on abutment geometry, luting agent and cleaning method during re-cementation

Franziska Pohlmeyer,Katharina Lange,Ralf Burger Nikolaus Gersdorff,Fenja Ehret-Kleinau,Sven Rinke,Matthias ROdiger 대한치과보철학회 2014 The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Vol.6 No.3

PURPOSE To evaluate the effects of different abutment geometries in combination with varying luting agents and the effectiveness of different cleaning methods (prior to re-cementation) regarding the retentiveness of zirconia copings on implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS Implants were embedded in resin blocks. Three groups of titanium abutments (pre-fabricated, height: 7.5 mm, taper: 5.7°; customized-long, height: 6.79 mm, taper: 4.8°; customized-short, height: 4.31 mm, taper: 4.8°) were used for luting of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia copings with a semi-permanent (Telio CS) and a provisional cement (TempBond NE). Retention forces were evaluated using a universal testing machine. Furthermore, the influence of cleaning methods (manually, manually in combination with ultrasonic bath or sandblasting) prior to re-cementation with a provisional cement (TempBond NE) was investigated with the pre-fabricated titanium abutments (height: 7.5 mm, taper: 5.7°) and SEM-analysis of inner surfaces of the copings was performed. Significant differences were determined via two-way ANOVA. RESULTS Significant interactions between abutment geometry and luting agent were observed. TempBond NE showed the highest level of retentiveness on customized-long abutments, but was negatively affected by other abutment geometries. In contrast, luting with Telio CS demonstrated consistent results irrespective of the varying abutment geometries. Manual cleaning in combination with an ultrasonic bath was the only cleaning method tested prior to re-cementation that revealed retentiveness levels not inferior to primary cementation. CONCLUSION No superiority for one of the two cements could be demonstrated because their influences on retentive strength are also depending on abutment geometry. Only manual cleaning in combination with an ultrasonic bath offers retentiveness levels after re-cementation comparable to those of primary luting.

Evaluation of removal forces of implant-supported zirconia copings depending on abutment geometry, luting agent and cleaning method during re-cementation

Rodiger, Matthias,Rinke, Sven,Ehret-Kleinau, Fenja,Pohlmeyer, Franziska,Lange, Katharina,Burgers, Ralf,Gersdorff, Nikolaus The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics 2014 The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Vol.6 No.3

PURPOSE. To evaluate the effects of different abutment geometries in combination with varying luting agents and the effectiveness of different cleaning methods (prior to re-cementation) regarding the retentiveness of zirconia copings on implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Implants were embedded in resin blocks. Three groups of titanium abutments (pre-fabricated, height: 7.5 mm, taper: $5.7^{\circ}$; customized-long, height: 6.79 mm, taper: $4.8^{\circ}$; customized-short, height: 4.31 mm, taper: $4.8^{\circ}$) were used for luting of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia copings with a semi-permanent (Telio CS) and a provisional cement (TempBond NE). Retention forces were evaluated using a universal testing machine. Furthermore, the influence of cleaning methods (manually, manually in combination with ultrasonic bath or sandblasting) prior to re-cementation with a provisional cement (TempBond NE) was investigated with the pre-fabricated titanium abutments (height: 7.5 mm, taper: $5.7^{\circ}$) and SEM-analysis of inner surfaces of the copings was performed. Significant differences were determined via two-way ANOVA. RESULTS. Significant interactions between abutment geometry and luting agent were observed. TempBond NE showed the highest level of retentiveness on customized-long abutments, but was negatively affected by other abutment geometries. In contrast, luting with Telio CS demonstrated consistent results irrespective of the varying abutment geometries. Manual cleaning in combination with an ultrasonic bath was the only cleaning method tested prior to re-cementation that revealed retentiveness levels not inferior to primary cementation. CONCLUSION. No superiority for one of the two cements could be demonstrated because their influences on retentive strength are also depending on abutment geometry. Only manual cleaning in combination with an ultrasonic bath offers retentiveness levels after re-cementation comparable to those of primary luting.