File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Stud vs bar attachments for maxillary four-implant-supported overdentures: 3- to 9-year results from a retrospective study

TitleStud vs bar attachments for maxillary four-implant-supported overdentures: 3- to 9-year results from a retrospective study
Authors
KeywordsBar
Dental implants
Edentulous maxilla
Overdenture
Stud
Survival rate
Issue Date2019
Citation
International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, 2019, v. 34, n. 4, p. 936-946 How to Cite?
AbstractThe aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of four-implant-supported overdentures retained by stud or bar attachments for patients with an edentulous maxilla. Materials and Methods: From January 2008 to December 2014, patients with maxillary edentulism were enrolled in this retrospective study. The insertion of four maxillary dental implants was followed by restoration with either stud-retained or barretained overdentures. The characteristics of the subjects and implants were recorded. Implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, peri-implant clinical parameters, prosthetic maintenance efforts, and patient satisfaction score were evaluated at the last follow-up time. The data were statistically analyzed, and the level of significance was set at α = .05. Results: A total of 132 implants were placed in 33 patients, of whom 18 were restored with four-implant-supported overdentures retained by stud attachments, and the other 15 with four-implant- supported overdentures retained by bar attachments. Thirty-one patients and 124 implants were available for the entire follow-up. During a mean follow-up period of 77 months (range: 36 to 111 months), five among 72 implants failed for three patients in the stud-retained group and two among 60 implants failed for two patients in the bar-retained group, resulting in estimated cumulative implant survival rates of 81.4% and 86.2% for the stud-retained group and the bar-retained group, respectively. Except for the modified Plaque Index (P = .035), no significant differences were indicated between the two attachment groups in terms of implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, peri-implant clinical parameters, or prosthetic maintenance treatment. Peri-/inter-implant gingival hyperplasia occurred only with implants under bar attachments. Patients in both groups reported a high degree of satisfaction. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, no significant differences were indicated between the clinical outcomes of maxillary four-implant-supported overdentures with either stud or bar attachments, although a higher modified Plaque Index was observed for the bar-retained group. Furthermore, prostheses with stud attachments were advantageous for their convenient cleaning and repair.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/354132
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 1.7
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.702
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLian, Meifei-
dc.contributor.authorZhao, Kai-
dc.contributor.authorWang, Feng-
dc.contributor.authorHuang, Wei-
dc.contributor.authorZhang, Xiuyin-
dc.contributor.authorWu, Yiqun-
dc.date.accessioned2025-02-07T08:46:40Z-
dc.date.available2025-02-07T08:46:40Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, 2019, v. 34, n. 4, p. 936-946-
dc.identifier.issn0882-2786-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/354132-
dc.description.abstractThe aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of four-implant-supported overdentures retained by stud or bar attachments for patients with an edentulous maxilla. Materials and Methods: From January 2008 to December 2014, patients with maxillary edentulism were enrolled in this retrospective study. The insertion of four maxillary dental implants was followed by restoration with either stud-retained or barretained overdentures. The characteristics of the subjects and implants were recorded. Implant survival rates, marginal bone loss, peri-implant clinical parameters, prosthetic maintenance efforts, and patient satisfaction score were evaluated at the last follow-up time. The data were statistically analyzed, and the level of significance was set at α = .05. Results: A total of 132 implants were placed in 33 patients, of whom 18 were restored with four-implant-supported overdentures retained by stud attachments, and the other 15 with four-implant- supported overdentures retained by bar attachments. Thirty-one patients and 124 implants were available for the entire follow-up. During a mean follow-up period of 77 months (range: 36 to 111 months), five among 72 implants failed for three patients in the stud-retained group and two among 60 implants failed for two patients in the bar-retained group, resulting in estimated cumulative implant survival rates of 81.4% and 86.2% for the stud-retained group and the bar-retained group, respectively. Except for the modified Plaque Index (P = .035), no significant differences were indicated between the two attachment groups in terms of implant survival rate, marginal bone loss, peri-implant clinical parameters, or prosthetic maintenance treatment. Peri-/inter-implant gingival hyperplasia occurred only with implants under bar attachments. Patients in both groups reported a high degree of satisfaction. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, no significant differences were indicated between the clinical outcomes of maxillary four-implant-supported overdentures with either stud or bar attachments, although a higher modified Plaque Index was observed for the bar-retained group. Furthermore, prostheses with stud attachments were advantageous for their convenient cleaning and repair.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants-
dc.subjectBar-
dc.subjectDental implants-
dc.subjectEdentulous maxilla-
dc.subjectOverdenture-
dc.subjectStud-
dc.subjectSurvival rate-
dc.titleStud vs bar attachments for maxillary four-implant-supported overdentures: 3- to 9-year results from a retrospective study-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.11607/jomi.7224-
dc.identifier.pmid30934037-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85070055511-
dc.identifier.volume34-
dc.identifier.issue4-
dc.identifier.spage936-
dc.identifier.epage946-
dc.identifier.eissn1942-4434-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000476818700018-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats