Mandibular 3-implant overdenture: A clinical report of a novel design

OBJECTIVE

To report on the use of a mandibular 3-implant overdenture with a novel implant distribution opposing a maxillary complete denture for the rehabilitation of an older edentulous patient.

BACKGROUND

The use of oral implants with attachment systems of various numbers and designs to support removable partial and complete dentures is well documented with success and predictability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An older edentulous patient with a mandibular implant-assisted removable partial denture was presented with failing remaining dentition. Teeth were extracted and a single midsymphyseal implant was placed. A mandibular overdenture on three implants with ball attachments in a tripod distribution was constructed to oppose a new maxillary complete denture made using a modified impression technique.

RESULTS

Over 2 years of follow-up, no significant biological or mechanical complications were reported, and denture retention and stability remained optimum.

CONCLUSION

Mandibular overdentures on three implants with ball attachments in a tripod distribution, opposing a maxillary complete denture, could be an alternative treatment option for the older edentulous patients.

Immediate versus Delayed Attachment Incorporation Impact on Prosthetic Aftercare among Mandibular Implant-Supported Overdenture Wearers

Background: Substantial effort is dedicated to finding the most favorable parameters that will ensure low aftercare demands among edentulous patients wearing mandibular implant supported overdentures (MISODs). The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare prosthetic aftercare between MISOD patients with a simultaneous (group A) vs. a three-week settling in period (group B) prior to attachment incorporation. Methods: Forty-five patients enrolled in this study. Two implants per patient were placed using a two-stage implant insertion protocol. Second-stage surgery was performed after three months. All patients received ball attachments using the direct (chairside) incorporation method. Twenty-two patients received their dentures with simultaneous attachment activation and the rest—twenty-three patients—after a three-week settling in period. Patients’ files were scanned for aftercare visits. Outcome parameters included sore spot relief, attachment incorporation, and denture repair. Additionally, gingival index measurements were compared. Confounding factors included age, gender, and implant dimensions. Results: The mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 84 ± 21 months, and the range 39–120 months. The mean number of visits for group A vs. B respectively: pressure sores relieve (3.63 ± 0.84 vs. 3.71 ± 0.61, p = 0.581), liner exchange due to loss of retention (2.09 ± 1.03 vs. 2.31 ± 1.04 p = 0.487), and gingival index (1.3 ± 0.3 vs. 1.03 ± 0.2, p = 0.653) exhibited no statistically significant differences between the tested groups. No statistically significant differences between the groups were also noted for the denture repair aftercare treatments (p = 0.318) and the independent variables including age, gender, and implant length. Conclusions: Prosthetic aftercare in MISOD wearers is similar whether a simultaneous or a three-week settling in period for attachment incorporation is applied.