The Effect of Maximum Bite Force, Implant Number, and Attachment Type on Marginal Bone Loss around Implants Supporting Mandibular Overdentures: A Retrospective Study
Onur Geckili PhD, DDS,
Emre Mumcu PhD, DDS,
Hakan Bilhan PhD, DDS,
Corresponding Author
Onur Geckili PhD, DDS
Research assistant, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
Dr. Onur Geckili, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, 2nd floor, Çapa-Istanbul 34093, Turkey; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorEmre Mumcu PhD, DDS
Research assistant, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorHakan Bilhan PhD, DDS
Research assistant, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorOnur Geckili PhD, DDS,
Emre Mumcu PhD, DDS,
Hakan Bilhan PhD, DDS,
Corresponding Author
Onur Geckili PhD, DDS
Research assistant, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
Dr. Onur Geckili, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, 2nd floor, Çapa-Istanbul 34093, Turkey; e-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorEmre Mumcu PhD, DDS
Research assistant, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorHakan Bilhan PhD, DDS
Research assistant, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
Search for more papers by this authorABSTRACT
Background: There remains controversy regarding the clinical reasons for late-implant bone loss, which is a critical factor in the long-term success of implant-supported overdentures.
Purpose: Assessment of the effect of such factors as attachment type, number of implants, gender, age, and maximum bite force (MBF) on marginal bone loss (MBL) around implants supporting mandibular overdentures.
Materials and Methods: Sixty-two edentulous patients rehabilitated with two-, three-, or four-implant-supported mandibular overdentures at a university clinic between January 2006 and January 2007 and having a digital panoramic radiograph at the time of loading, were included in this study. All patients received digital panoramic radiographs, and MBL was measured by subtracting bone levels from the first radiograph. MBF was measured using a bite force transducer.
Results: The amount of bone loss 48 months after loading was found to be unrelated to gender, age, implant number, attachment type, and splinting (p = .741, p = .953, p = .640, p = .763, p = .370, respectively). A significant correlation was observed between the MBF and the MBL of distal implants on the right side (p < .01, 79.9%) and the MBF and the MBL of distal implants on the left side (p = .011, 34.6%).
Conclusions: MBL around implants supporting mandibular overdentures seems not to be affected by number of implants, attachment type, age, or gender; however, MBL is affected by MBF.
REFERENCES
- 1 Naert I, Alsaadi G, Quirynen M. Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 10-year randomized clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17: 401–410.
- 2 Bakke M, Holm B, Gotfredsen K. Masticatory function and patient satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures: a prospective 5-year study. Int J Prosthodont 2002; 15: 575–581.
- 3 Allen PF, McMillan AS, Walshaw D. A patient-based assessment of implant-stabilized and conventional complete dentures. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85: 141–147.
- 4 Awad MA, Locker D, Korner-Bitensky N, Feine JS. Measuring the effect of intra-oral implant rehabilitation on health-related quality of life in a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Dent Res 2000; 79: 1659–1663.
- 5 Awad MA, Lund JP, Dufresne E, Feine JS. Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implant-retained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle-aged edentulous patients: satisfaction and functional assessment. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16: 117–122.
- 6 Awad MA, Lund JP, Shapiro SH, et al. Oral health status and treatment satisfaction with mandibular implant overdentures and conventional dentures: a randomized clinical trial in a senior population. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16: 390–396.
- 7 Feine JS, Maskawi K, de Grandmont P, Donohue WB, Tanguay R, Lund JP. Within-subject comparisons of implant-supported mandibular prostheses: evaluation of masticatory function. J Dent Res 1994; 73: 1646–1656.
- 8 van der Bilt A, van Kampen FM, Cune MS. Masticatory function with mandibular implant-supported overdentures fitted with different attachment types. Eur J Oral Sci 2006; 114: 191–196.
- 9 Doundoulakis JH, Eckert SE, Lindquist CC, Jeffcoat MK. The implant-supported overdenture as an alternative to the complete mandibular denture. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134: 1455–1458.
- 10 Kwon JY, Kim YS, Kim CW. Assessing changes of peri-implant bone using digital subtraction radiography. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2001; 39: 273–280.
- 11 Cehreli MC, Karasoy D, Kokat AM, Akca K, Eckert S. A systematic review of marginal bone loss around implants retaining or supporting overdentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010; 25: 266–277.
- 12 Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria for success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986; 1: 11–25.
- 13 Smith DE, Zarb G. Criteria for success of osseointegrated endosseous implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62: 567–572.
- 14 van Kampen F, Cune M, van der Bilt A, Bosman F. The effect of maximum bite force on marginal bone loss in mandibular overdenture treatment: an in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005; 16: 587–593.
- 15 Jofré J, Hamada T, Nishimura M, Klattenhoff C. The effect of maximum bite force on marginal bone loss of mini-implants supporting a mandibular overdenture: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010; 21: 243–249.
- 16 Duyck J, Van Oosterwyck H, Vander Sloten J, De Cooman M, Puers R, Naert I. In vivo forces on oral implants supporting a mandibular overdenture: the influence of attachment system. Clin Oral Investig 1999; 3: 201–207.
- 17 Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Batenburg RH, Visser A, Vissink A. Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosseous implants: a 10-year clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2009; 20: 722–728.
- 18 Gotfredsen K, Holm B. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or bar attachments: a randomized prospective 5-year study. Int J Prosthodont 2000; 13: 125–130.
- 19 Kenney R, Richards MW. Photoelastic stress patterns produced by implant-retained overdentures. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 80: 559–564.
- 20 Ichikawa T, Horiuchi M, Wigianto R, Matsumoto N. In vitro study of mandibular implant-retained overdentures: the influence of stud attachments on load transfer to the implant and soft tissue. Int J Prosthodont 1996; 9: 394–399.
- 21 Tokuhisa M, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. In vitro study of a mandibular implant overdenture retained with ball, magnet, or bar attachments: comparison of load transfer and denture stability. Int J Prosthodont 2003; 16: 128–134.
- 22 Porter JA Jr, Petropoulos VC, Brunski JB. Comparison of load distribution for implant overdenture attachments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17: 651–662.
- 23 Mericske-Stern R, Piotti M, Sirtes G. 3-D in vivo force measurements on mandibular implants supporting overdentures. A comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res 1996; 7: 387–396.
- 24 Esposito M, Hirsch J-M, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (I). Success criteria and epidemiology. Eur J Oral Sci 1998; 106: 527–551.
- 25 Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D. Fixture design and overload influence marginal bone loss and fixture success in the Brånemark® system. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992; 3: 104–111.
- 26 Chung DM, Oh TJ, Lee J, Misch CE, Wang HL. Factors affecting late implant bone loss: a retrospective analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007; 22: 117–126.
- 27 Schroeder A, van der Zypen E, Stich H, Sutter F. The reactions of bone, connective tissue, and epithelium to endosteal implants with titanium-sprayed surfaces. J Maxillofac Surg 1981; 9: 15–25.
- 28 Esposito M, Hirsch JM, Lekholm U, Thomsen P. Biological factors contributing to failures of osseointegrated oral implants. (II). Etiopathogenesis. Eur J Oral Sci 1998; 106: 721–764.
- 29 Albrektsson T, Isidor F. Consensus report of session IV. In: NP Lang, T Karring, eds. Proceedings of the 1st European Workshop Periodontology. London: Quintessence Publishing, 1994: 365–369.
- 30 Lindh C, Petersson A, Klinge B. Measurements of distances related to the mandibular canal in radiographs. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995; 6: 96–103.
- 31 Batenburg R, Meijer H, Geraets W, van der Stelt P. Radiographic assessment of changes in marginal bone around endosseous implants supporting mandibular overdentures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1998; 27: 221–224.
- 32 Zechner W, Watzak G, Gahleitner A, Busenlechner D, Tepper G, Watzek G. Rotational panoramic versus intraoral rectangular radiographs for evaluation of peri-implant bone loss in the anterior atrophic mandible. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2003; 18: 873–878.
- 33 Mupparapu M, Singer S. Implant imaging for the dentist. J Can Dent Assoc 2004; 70: 548–552.
- 34 Ma S, Tawse-Smith A, Thomson WM, Payne AG. Marginal bone loss with mandibular two-implant overdentures using different loading protocols and attachment systems: 10-year outcomes. Int J Prosthodont 2010; 23: 321–332.
- 35 Turkyilmaz I. Clinical and radiological results of patients treated with two loading protocols for mandibular overdentures on Brånemark implants. J Clin Periodontol 2006; 33: 233–238.
- 36 Friberg B, Sennerby L, Roos J, Lekholm U. Identification of bone quality in conjunction with insertion of titanium implants. A pilot study in jaw autopsy specimens. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995; 6: 213–219.
- 37 Merickse-Stern R. Clinical evaluation of overdenture restorations supported by osseointegrated titanium implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990; 5: 375–383.
- 38 Payne AGT, Tawse-Smith A, Duncan WJ, Kumara R. Conventional early loading of unsplinted ITI implants supporting mandibular overdentures: two-year results of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003; 13: 603–609.
- 39 Lindquist LW, Rockler B, Carlsson GE. Bone resorption around fixtures in edentulous patients treated with mandibular fixed tissue-integrated prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 1988; 59: 59–63.
- 40 Lindquist LW, Carlsson GE, Jemt T. Association between marginal bone loss around osseointegrated mandibular implants and smoking habits: a 10-year follow-up study. J Dent Res 1997; 76: 1667–1674.
- 41 Wang L, Sadler JP, Breeding LC, Dixon DL. An in vitro study of implant–tooth-supported connections using a robot test system. J Biomech Eng 1999; 121: 290–297.
- 42 Van Oosterwyck H, Duyck J, Vander Sloten J, et al. The influence of bone mechanical properties and implant fixation upon bone loading around oral implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 1998; 9: 407–418.
- 43 Duyck J, Van Oosterwyck H, Vander Sloten J, De Cooman M, Puers R, Naert I. Magnitude and distribution of occlusal forces on oral implants supporting fixed prostheses: an in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2000; 11: 465–475.
- 44 El Askary AS, Meffert RM, Griffin T. Why do dental implants fail? Part I. Implant Dent 1999; 8: 173–185.
- 45 Lobbezoo F, Brouwers JE, Cune MS, Naeije M. Dental implants in patients with bruxing habits. J Oral Rehabil 2006; 33: 152–159.
