Search

PURPOSE: Clinical, microbiologic, and immunologic comparisons of the peri-implant health in edentulous volunteers wearing long-standing implant-supported ball- or Dolder bar-retained mandibular overdentures were performed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten age- and gender-matched individuals (mean age, 71 years) with either ball- or bar-retained complete mandibular overdentures, scheduled for an annual implant recall examination, were investigated an average of 7 years after implant placement. Plaque and gingival crevicular fluid samples were obtained from the peri-implant sulcus. The groups were compared with regard to peri-implant probing depth; plaque and bleeding on probing scores; sulcular fluid flow rates; implant stability measurements (Periotest device); relative concentrations of Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans, Prevotella intermedia, Fusobacterium nucleatum, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythensis, and Treponema denticola assessed by polymerase chain reaction analysis; and sulcular concentrations of interleukin-1beta and prostaglandin E2, assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found for any of the examined parameters between both study groups. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, both ball attachments and Dolder bars can be recommended for overdenture retention, with either one showing satisfying clinical, microbiologic, and immunologic findings in the peri-implant tissues after several years of service in healthy recall patients with good oral hygiene habits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Occlusal overload may contribute to the loss of osseointegration of oral implants, so some clinicians are reluctant to place implants in patients with signs of bruxism. This study evaluated the effect of occlusal wear as a probable sign of bruxism on bone loss and implant stability. Materials and Methods: The study investigated 379 patients who had worn implant-retained or implant-supported restorations for many years. Occlusal wear, patient age and gender, time of prosthetic loading, jaw, location in the dental arch, implant diameter, prosthesis construction, occlusal material, periimplantitis, and loosening of the prosthetic construction were recorded. One implant from each patient was selected for radiographic and Periotest measurements. The implant with the highest bone resorption was chosen. A forward stepwise multiple linear regression analysis was performed to analyze the effect of the explanatory variables on Periotest value and radiographic bone loss. Results: The statistical models could account for part of the variation in bone loss rate and Periotest value. Some influence of time of loading, jaw, and implant diameter on bone loss or Periotest value was formally established. Occlusal wear failed to have any statistical impact on vertical annual bone loss rate or Periotest value. Conclusion: This study gave no indication that implants in patients with occlusal wear have an increased bone loss rate or Periotest value. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study investigated 124 stepped-screw implants (gritblasted and acid-etched surface) placed in 104 patients immediately after tooth extraction or implant explantation and followed between August 1990 and December 1996. Implants of varying diameters and lengths were used to cover a wide range of indications in both the maxilla and mandible; 68% of the implants supported single-tooth replacements. The study parameters included Plaque Index, Gingival Index, probing depth, Periotest values, and peri-implant bone loss. Statistical analysis according to Kaplan-Meier revealed a 97% survival rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Periotest values for dental implants depend on the type of prosthetic abutment utilized for the restoration. If Periotest value cannot be measured at the single crown, the Periotest values used for comparison must be derived from the same type of superstructure. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Fifty-nine patients were selected from a regular follow-up program. At the end of the healing period, the Periotest values of Frialit-2 implants were measured at the gingiva former and abutment. The values were then compared with the Periotest measurements obtained at the placement of the final single crown and during the first follow-up examination. RESULTS: Compared to values measured at single crowns, the Periotest value measured at gingiva formers decreased on average by 3.5. The measurement of the abutment revealed a decrease of 1.7. Until the first recall and under functional loading of implants, the Periotest value increased on average by 1.8. These differences significantly differed from 0. CONCLUSION: If measurements at different abutments such as crown abutments or single crowns are necessary, comparison of the Periotest values in accordance with the given mean values will lead to more precise results. It is recommended that Periotest measurements be performed for the first and subsequent prostheses, during all prosthetic stages, to allow comparison if some parts of the prosthetic abutment have to be replaced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]