Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download
ePaper created 2017-06-02, 10:40:19 | version 1.38.0
T w o i m p l a n t s s u p p o r t i n g a m a n d i b u l a r o v e r d e n t u r e complete mandibular dentures, even in severely atrophic patients. In the present study, extra- soft or soft retentive caps were used during the first month after loading in order to allow for easy management by patients. The stronger retentive caps were used to improve the balance between mucosal support and implant reten- tion, also increasing patient satisfaction. A mandibular overdenture supported by two implants is a well-proven treatment option for severely atrophic patients when a conventional removable denture is not sufficient to ensure function and esthetics. In this historic time, in which the average age of patients has increased, it is important to have a minimally invasive, safe and predictable treatment option that can greatly improve quality of life of patients. Conclusion Within the limitations of this study, a mandibu- lar overdenture supported by two implants can be considered an effective and predictable option for successful treatment of patients pre- senting with Cawood and Howell Class V or VI mandibular atrophy. After a short period of ac- commodation, it is recommended to replace the conventional retention caps with stronger ones to improve overden-ture stability and thus pa- tient satisfaction. Competing interests All authors declare no conflicts of interest. References 1. Albrektsson T, Blomberg S, Brånemark A, Carlsson GE. Edentulousness—an oral handicap. Patient reactions to treatment with jawbone-anchored prostheses. → J Oral Rehabil. 1987 Nov;14(6):503–11. 2. Allen PF. Association between diet, social resources and oral health related quality of life in edentulous patients. → J Oral Rehabil. 2005 Sep;32(9):623–8. 3. Ellis JS, Burawi G, Walls A, Thomason JM. Patient satisfaction with two designs of implant supported removable overdentu- res; ball attachment and magnets. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Nov;20(11):1293–8. 4. Harris D, Höfer S, O’Boyle CA, Sheridan S, Marley J, Benington IC, Clifford T, Houston F, O’Connell B. A comparison of implant-retained mandibular overdentures and conventional dentures on quality of life in edentulous patients: a randomized, prospective, within-subject controlled clinical trial. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 Jan;24(1):96–103. 5. Chiapasco M, Abati S, Romeo E, Vogel G. Implant-retained mandibular overdentures with Brånemark System MKII implants: a prospective comparative study between delayed and im-mediate loading. → Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001 Jul-Aug;16(4):537–46. 6. Romeo E, Chiapasco M, Lazza A, Casentini P, Ghisolfi M, Iorio M, Vogel G. Implant- retained mandibular overdentures with ITI implants. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002 Oct;13(5):495–501. 7. Turkyilmaz I, Tumer C. Early versus late loading of unsplinted TiUnite surface implants sup-porting mandibular overdentures: a 2-year report from a prospective study. → J Oral Rehabil. 2007 Oct;34(10):773–80. 8. Hyland R, Ellis J, Thomason M, El-Feky A, Moynihan P. A qualitative study on patient per-spectives of how conventional and implant-supported dentures affect eating. → J Dent. 2009 Sep;37(9):718–23. 9. Thomason JM, Kelly SA, Bendkowski A, Ellis JS. Two implant retained overdentu- res—a re-view of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements. → J Dent. 2012 Jan;40(1):22–34. 14. Tallarico M, Vaccarella A, Marzi GC. Clinical and radiological outcomes of 1- versus 2-stage implant placement: 1-year results of a randomised clinical trial. → Eur J Oral Implantol. 2011 Spring;4(1):13–20. 15. Tallarico M, Meloni SM. Open-cohort prospective study on early implant failure and physio-logical marginal remodeling expected using sandblasted and acid-etched bone level implants featuring an 11° Morse taper connection within one year after loading. → J Oral Science Rehabilitation. 2017 Mar;3(1):68–79. 16. Elsyad MA, Khairallah AS, Shawky AF. Changes in the edentulous maxilla with ball and tele-scopic attachments of implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 4-year retrospective study. → Quintessence Int. 2013 Jul;44(7):487–95. 10. Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK. Four-implant overdenture fully supported by a CAD-CAM titanium bar: a single-cohort prospective 1-year preliminary study. → J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Oct;116(4):516–23. 11. Weinländer M, Piehslinger E, Krennmair G. Removable implant-prosthodontic rehabilitation of the edentulous mandible: five-year results of different prosthetic anchorage concepts. → Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 May-Jun;25(3):589–97. 12. Cawood JI, Howell RA. A classification of the edentulous jaws. → Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1988 Aug;17(4):232–6. 13. Elm von E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Ini-tiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. → BMJ. 2007 Oct 20;335(7624):806–8. Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Volume 3 | Issue 2/2017 59