Premium
Clinical Outcome of Double Crown‐Retained Mandibular Removable Dentures Supported by a Combination of Residual Teeth and Strategic Implants
Author(s) -
Rinke Sven,
Ziebolz Dirk,
RatkaKrüger Petra,
Frisch Eberhard
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of prosthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.902
H-Index - 60
eISSN - 1532-849X
pISSN - 1059-941X
DOI - 10.1111/jopr.12214
Subject(s) - dentistry , dentures , crown (dentistry) , medicine , abutment , implant , removable partial denture , survival rate , orthodontics , dental prosthesis , surgery , civil engineering , engineering
Purpose There is a lack of data regarding the clinical outcome of removable partial dentures (RPDs) supported by a combination of residual natural teeth and implants placed in strategic positions. The aim of the present case series was to conduct a retrospective investigation of the clinical outcome of mandibular tooth‐implant‐retained partial dentures (TIRPD) rigidly retained via telescopic double crowns. Material and Methods Between 1999 and 2010, 18 patients with reduced residual dentition (1 to 3 natural abutment teeth) and in need of an RPD received 1 to 3 implants in strategic positions for support of the removable prostheses. All TIRPDs were rigidly retained by telescopic crowns according to the Marburg Double Crown (MDC) technique; all prostheses were placed in a private practice. Tooth/implant survival and success rates, prosthetic maintenance requirements, and peri‐implant parameters were analyzed retrospectively using patient records and clinical examinations during the final recall appointments. Only patients attending at least annual supportive post‐implant hygiene therapy visits (SIT) were included. Results After a mean functional period of 5.84 ± 3 years (range: 3.01–12.21), 14 patients with 14 dentures supported by 24 implants and 27 teeth (mean number of abutments: 3.6) were available for assessment. Four teeth (survival rate: 85.19%) and no implants (survival rate: 100%) were lost. Peri‐implantitis was observed around one implant (4.17%). All 14 dentures were functional (survival rate: 100%) and required only limited maintenance (i.e., screw loosening, acrylic resin fracture repairs, relining) amounting to 0.086 treatments per patient per year (T/P/Y). Conclusions Within the limitations of this case series, it can be concluded that TIRPDs retained via MDCs might represent a viable treatment option in mandibles with few remaining abutment teeth. Further long‐term clinical evaluations with a greater sample size are needed for a more detailed evaluation of this treatment concept.