Analysis of Marginal Bone Loss and Residual Ridge Resorption in Conventionally Loaded Single and Two Implant Supported Overdentures

Harvindersingh Gill; Archana Nagpal; Sharad Vaidya; Vikas Jindal; Pratibha Sharma

doi:10.36437/ijdrd.2021.3.3.B

Harvindersingh Gill MDS, Department of Prosthodontics Medical Officer Dental Zonal Hospital Mandi Distt. Mandi Himachal Pradesh, India.
Archana Nagpal HOD, Department of Prosthodontics Crown and Bridge, Himachal Dental College Sundernagar, Mandi Himachal Pradesh, India.
Sharad Vaidya Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics Crown and Bridge, Himachal Dental College Sundernagar, Mandi Himachal Pradesh, India.
Vikas Jindal HOD, Department of Periodontics and Implantology, Himachal Dental College Sundernagar, Mandi Himachal Pradesh, India.
Pratibha Sharma MDS, Prosthodontics Medical Officer Dental, Civil Hospital Ratti, Nerchowk, Distt. Mandi Himachal Pradesh, India.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36437/ijdrd.2021.3.3.B

Keywords: Implants, Ball-abutments, Metal Housings, Crestal Bone Loss, Residual Ridge Resorption.

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to analyze the marginal bone loss and residual ridge resorption in patients wearing single and two implant-supported overdentures.

Materials and methods: This study was conducted on 20 edentulous patients between 50-75 years of age who have been completely edentulous for a period of at least one year or more. Patients were divided into two groups: Group-A in which two implants of size 3.75x13mm were placed in B and D position and ball abutments were attached to make an overdenture; in Group-B patients, a single implant at position C was placed and overdenture was made with ball abutments. Crestal bone loss was recorded around the margins in both the groups and residual ridge resorption was calculated in the mandibular posterior region using Wical And Swoope method. The data collected were compared for analysis using the Man-Whitney U test.

Results: For 2-IOD overall mean crestal bone loss for one year was 0.15± 0.03cmand for S-IOD it was 0.14 ± 0.03cm. The significance value was calculated to be 0.518 and U=41.5 which was found to be non-significant. Difference in residual ridge resorption was also found to be non-significant in both the groups with the significance value of 0.284 and U=36.

Conclusion: The scope of the single implant-retained overdentures can be a promising alternative for patients with an atrophic mandible, systemically compromised patients with financial difficulties.

References

British Dental Journal VOLUME 207 NO. 4 AUG 22 2009.

Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA, Chehade A, Duncan WJ, Gizani S, Head T, Lund JP, MacEntee M, Mericske-Stern R, Mojon P, Morais J, Naert I, Payne AG,Penrod J, Stoker GT, Tawse-Smith A, Taylor TD, Thomason JM, Thomson WM, Wismeijer D. The McGill consensus on Overdentures J Pros. Dent. 2002

Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, Moynihan P, Müller F, Naert I, Ellis JS, Barclay C, Butterworth C, Scott B, Lynch C, Stewardson D, Smith P, Welfare R, Hyde P, McAndrew R, Fenlon M, Barclay S, Barker D. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients--the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J. 2009 Aug 22; 207(4):185-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.728

Heydecke, G., Penrod, J. R., Takanashi, Y., Lund, J. P., Feine, J. S., & Thomason, J. M. (2005). Cost-effectiveness of Mandibular Two-implant Overdentures and Conventional Dentures in the Edentulous Elderly. Journal of Dental Research, 84(9), 794–799; https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910508400903

Mahoorkar S, Bhat S, Kant R. Single implant supported mandibular overdenture: A literature review. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016; 16:75-82. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4052.164881

Dental Implant Prosthetics by Carl E. Misch DDS MDS PhD(HC)

Shanahan TEJ: Physiologic vertical dimension and centric relation. 1956; The journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2004; 91(3): 206-209. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.09.002

Zarb G. A., Bolender C. L., Carlsson G.E.: Boucher s Prosthodontic Treatment for Edentulous Patients. Baltimore, 9th ed C.V. Mosby Co, st. Louis Baltimore, Philadelphia, Toranto, 1990; pp 279.280.294.295.

Cordioli G, Majzoub Z, Castagna S, Mandibular overdentures anchored to single implants: A five year prospective study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1997; 78:159-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(97)70120-3

Bryant S R, Walton J N, and MacEntee M I, A 5-year Randomized Trial to Compare 1 or 2 Implants for Implant Overdentures. J Dent Res, 2014 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514554224

Passia N, Wolfart S, Kern M. Six-year clinical outcome of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures – a pilot study. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 00, 2014, 1–4 doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12427

Jayaram B, Shenoy K K, Analysis of Mandibular Ridge Resorption in Completely Edentulous Patients Using Digital Panoramic Radiography. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS) Volume 16, Issue 8 Ver. I (Aug. 2017), PP 66-73; http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jdms/papers/Vol16-issue8/Version-1/O1608016673.pdf

Wical K E and Swoope C C, Studies of residual ridge resorption. I. Use of panoramic radiographs for evaluation and classification of mandibular resorption. J. Prosthet. Dent. July 1974. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(74)90093-6

Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P and Eriksson AR, The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986; 1:11-25. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3527955/

The McGill Consensus Statement on Overdentures: Mandibular two-implant overdentures as first choice standard of care for edentulous patients. (2002). Gerodontology, 19(1), 3–4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2358.2002.00003.x

Srinivasan M, Makarov NA, Herrmann FR, Müller F. Implant survival in 1- versus 2-implant mandibular overdentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Jan; 27(1):63-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12513

Thomason, J. M., Kelly, S. A. M., Bendkowski, A., & Ellis, J. S. Two implant retained overdentures––A review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements. Journal of Dentistry, 40(1), 22–34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.08.017

Krennmair G, Ulm C. The symphyseal single-tooth implant for anchorage of a mandibular complete denture in geriatric patients: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001 Jan-Feb; 16(1):98-104. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11280368/

Oda K, Kanazawa M, Takeshita S, Minakuchi S. Influence of implant number on the movement of mandibular implant overdentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Mar; 117(3):380-385. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.005

de VE, et al. Clinical viability of single implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg (2018) doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijom.2018.01.021

Srinivasan M, Makarov NA, Herrmann FR, Müller F. Implant survival in 1- versus 2-implant mandibular overdentures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Jan; 27(1):63-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12513

Padmanabhan, H., Kumar, S. M., & Kumar, V. A. (2019). Single Implant Retained Overdenture Treatment Protocol – A Systematic Review & Meta‐Analysis. Journal of Prosthodontics. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13133

UTZ, K.-H. Studies of changes in occlusion after the insertion of complete dentures* (Part II). Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 24(5), 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00489.x

Amaral, C. F. do, Pinheiro, M. A., & Rodrigues Garcia, R. C. M. (2017). Reinforcement of Single Implant-Retained Mandibular Overdenture with a Cobalt-Chromium Framework before Implant Surgery. Journal of Prosthodontics.2017, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12732

Gonda T, Maeda Y, Walton JN, MacEntee MI. Fracture incidence in mandibular overdentures retained by one or two implants. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:178–181 doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3913(10)60026-1