Premium
Implant‐retained prostheses: ball vs. conus attachments – A randomized controlled clinical trial
Author(s) -
Cepa Sandy,
Koller Beatrice,
Spies Benedikt Christopher,
Stampf Susanne,
Kohal RalfJoachim
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.12779
Subject(s) - medicine , implant , dentistry , patient satisfaction , survival rate , randomized controlled trial , prosthesis , surgery
Objective To evaluate implant survival, peri‐implant tissue conditions, prosthodontic maintenance requirements and patient satisfaction of two differently retained implant‐supported mandibular overdentures ( IOD ) after the 3 years of observation. Materials and methods Twenty‐five patients with edentulous mandibles received two implants each. Twelve patients were randomly selected to receive ball attachments, whereas 13 patients received prefabricated coni. Implant survival, peri‐implant parameters (modified Plaque Index, Bleeding on Probing, modified Gingival Index, probing depth and marginal bone loss) and patient satisfaction were assessed. Additionally, prosthodontic maintenance was monitored. Clinical and radiographic follow‐ups were performed 1, 2 and 3 years after prosthetic delivery. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to calculate complication rates. Results After a mean observation period of 29.6 months, an implant survival rate of 100% could be observed. There were no significant differences in the peri‐implant parameters. During the observation period, six patients with conus attachment refused to further participate in follow‐ups due to dissatisfaction with their treatment and had to be regarded as dropouts. Based on the Kaplan–Meier method, inacceptable retention was calculated for 80% and 75% of the patients in the ball and the conus groups, respectively. Patient satisfaction was 64% for the ball‐ and 100% for the conus‐retained IOD s, the latter only respecting five of initially 13 patients. Conclusion The evaluated treatment method revealed high implant survival rates, but the prosthetic reconstruction required intensive maintenance. Therefore, a trend toward the reduced patient satisfaction was observed, and the promoted economy of the evaluated attachment systems should be questioned. For the conical attachment, the recommendation of the manufacturer is to use four interforaminal implants to support a removable prostheses.