Comparative Clinical Study of Conventional Dental Implants and Mini Dental Implants for Mandibular Overdentures: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
BACKGROUND
Dental implant-retained overdentures have been chosen as the treatment of choice for complete mandibular removable dentures. Dental implants, such as mini dental implants, and components for retaining overdentures, are commercially available. However, comparative clinical studies comparing mini dental implants and conventional dental implants using different attachment for implant-retained overdentures have not been well documented.


OBJECTIVE
To compare the clinical outcomes of using two mini dental implants with Equator®attachments, four mini dental implants with Equator attachments, or two conventional dental implants with ball attachments, by means of a randomized clinical trial.


METHODS
Sixty patients received implant-retained mandibular overdentures in the interforaminal region. The patients were divided into three groups. In Groups 1 and 2, two and four mini dental implants, respectively, were placed and immediately loaded by overdentures, using Equator®attachments. In Group 3, conventional implants were placed. After osseointegration, the implants were loaded by overdentures, using ball attachments. The study distribution was randomized and double-blinded. Outcome measures included changes in radiological peri-implant bone level from surgery to 12 months postinsertion, prosthodontic complications and patient satisfaction.


RESULTS
The cumulative survival rate in the three clinical groups after one year was 100%. There was no significant difference (p < 0.05) in clinical results regarding the number (two or four) of mini dental implants with Equator attachments. However, there was a significant difference in marginal bone loss and patient satisfaction between those receiving mini dental implants with Equator attachments and conventional dental implants with ball attachments. The marginal bone resorption in Group 3 was significantly higher than in Groups 1 and 2 (p < 0.05); there were no significant differences between Groups 1 and 2. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction between Groups 1 and 2 but it was significantly higher than that in Group3 (p < 0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
Two and four mini dental implants can be immediately used successfully for retaining lower complete dentures, as shown after a 1-year follow up.
Center of Excellence for Dental Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.
Weerapan
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4302-8671
W
Aunmeungtong
Associate Professor, Department of Oral Surgery, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.
Thongnard
T
Kumchai
Professor, Department of Oral Medicine, Dental Radiology and Oral Surgery, Charite Medical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Frank P
FP
Strietzel
Professor, Department of Oral Medicine, Dental Radiology and Oral Surgery, Charite Medical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Peter A
PA
Reichart
Associate Professor, Center of Excellence for Dental Implantology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chiang Mai University, Thailand.
Pathawee
P
Khongkhunthian
D000368:Aged; D016301:Alveolar Bone Loss / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology; D015921:Dental Implants; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D003781:Denture Retention; D003826:Denture, Complete, Lower; D003828:Denture, Overlay; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008334:Mandible / Q000473:pathology; D008336:Mandibular Diseases / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000473:pathology; D008422:Materials Testing
D015921:Dental Implants
clinical implant performance scale; implant stability quotient; mini dental implant; primary stability