File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.11607/jomi.7224
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85070055511
- PMID: 30934037
- WOS: WOS:000476818700018
- Find via

Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Stud vs bar attachments for maxillary four-implant-supported overdentures: 3- to 9-year results from a retrospective study
| Title | Stud vs bar attachments for maxillary four-implant-supported overdentures: 3- to 9-year results from a retrospective study |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Keywords | Bar Dental implants Edentulous maxilla Overdenture Stud Survival rate |
| Issue Date | 2019 |
| Citation | International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, 2019, v. 34, n. 4, p. 936-946 How to Cite? |
| Abstract | The 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 Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/354132 |
| ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.7 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.702 |
| ISI Accession Number ID |
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Lian, Meifei | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Zhao, Kai | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Wang, Feng | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Huang, Wei | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Zhang, Xiuyin | - |
| dc.contributor.author | Wu, Yiqun | - |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2025-02-07T08:46:40Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2025-02-07T08:46:40Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2019 | - |
| dc.identifier.citation | International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, 2019, v. 34, n. 4, p. 936-946 | - |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0882-2786 | - |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/354132 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | The 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.language | eng | - |
| dc.relation.ispartof | International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants | - |
| dc.subject | Bar | - |
| dc.subject | Dental implants | - |
| dc.subject | Edentulous maxilla | - |
| dc.subject | Overdenture | - |
| dc.subject | Stud | - |
| dc.subject | Survival rate | - |
| dc.title | Stud vs bar attachments for maxillary four-implant-supported overdentures: 3- to 9-year results from a retrospective study | - |
| dc.type | Article | - |
| dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.11607/jomi.7224 | - |
| dc.identifier.pmid | 30934037 | - |
| dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85070055511 | - |
| dc.identifier.volume | 34 | - |
| dc.identifier.issue | 4 | - |
| dc.identifier.spage | 936 | - |
| dc.identifier.epage | 946 | - |
| dc.identifier.eissn | 1942-4434 | - |
| dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000476818700018 | - |
