Thomason JM, Kelly SAM, Bendkowski A, Ellis JS. Two implant retained overdentures – a review of the literature supporting the McGill and York consensus statements. J Dent. 2012; 40:22-34
Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA The McGill Consensus Statement on Overdentures 2002. Int J Prosthodont. 2002; 15:413-414
Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients – the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J. 2009; 207
Jivraj S, Chee W, Corrado P Treatment planning of the edentulous maxilla. Br Dent J. 2006; 201:261-279
Pigozzo MN, Mesquita MF, Henriques GE The service life of implant-retained overdenture attachment system. J Prosthet Dent. 2009; 102:74-80
Rutger HK, Batenburg GM, Raghoebar RP Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosteal implants: a prospective, comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillo Surg. 1998; 27:435-439
Doundoulakis JH, Eckert SE, Lindquist CC, Jeffcoat MK. The implant supported overdenture as an alternative to the complete mandibular denture. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003; 134:1455-1458
Meijer HJ, Raghoebar GM, Batenburg RH, Visser A, Vissink A. Mandibular overdentures supported by two or four endosseous implants: a 10-year clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20:722-728
den Dunnen AC, Slagter AP, de Baat C, Kalk W. Professional hygiene care, adjustments and complications of mandibular implant-retained overdentures: a three-year retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 78:387-390
Esfandiari S, Lund JP, Thomaso JM, Dufresne E, Kobayashi T, Dubois M, Feine JS. Can general dentists produce successful implant overdentures with minimal training?. J Dent. 2006; 34:796-801
Pontoriero R, Tonelli MP, Carnevale G, Mombelli A, Nyman SR, Lang NP. Experimentally induced peri-implant mucositis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994; 5:254-259
Chee W, Jivraj S. Failures in implant dentistry. Br Dent J. 2007; 202:123-129
Davis DM, Packer ME. The maintenance requirements of mandibular overdentures stabilized by Astra Tech implants using three different attachment mechanisms-balls, magnets, and bars; 3-year results. Eur J Prosthet Rest Dent. 2000; 8:131-134
Polyzois GL, Andreopoulos AG, Lagouvardos PE. Acrylic resin denture repair with adhesive resin and metal wires: effects on strength parameters. J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 75:381-387
Gonda T, Maeda Y, Walton JN, MacEntee MI. Fracture incidence in mandibular overdentures retained by one or two implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2010; 103:178-181
Gotfredsen K, Holm B. Implant-supported mandibular overdentures retained with ball or bar attachments: a randomized prospective 5-year study. Int J Prosthodont. 2000; 13:125-130
Goodacre CJ, Bernal G, Rungcharassaeng K, Kan JY. Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90:121-132
Long and short term management of implant-supported mandibular overdentures Sabrina Parmar Naveen Karir Damien Walmsley Upen Patel Dental Update 2024 40:10, 707-709.
Authors
SabrinaParmar
BDS, MJDF RCS(Eng)
Specialty Dentist in Periodontology, Birmingham Dental Hospital, St Chad's Queensway, Birmingham B4 6NN, UK
Common problems with the long term clinical use of implant-supported mandibular overdentures (ISMDs) include fractures of dentures, bars and clips, and reactivation of clips. Many general dental practitioners (GDPs) are reticent to be involved in the maintenance of ISMDs, especially if they have not had any further training or are unfamiliar with implant components and systems. This article highlights the need for the training of GDPs in maintenance and management of ISMDs as an increasing number of edentulous patients are being provided with ISMDs, resulting in an increasing need for the maintenance of the prosthesis in the primary care setting at a possible cost to the patient.
Clinical Relevance: Implant-supported overdentures are becoming a common treatment option for edentulous patients, however, they are not without their clinical challenges, many of which can be easily rectified in a primary care environment, such as general practice.
Article
Complete dentures are considered a routine treatment option for prosthodontic rehabilitation of edentulous patients. However, the grossly resorbed ridges resulting from long term wear have led to support and retention problems for the prosthesis. Edentulous patients have become more clinically demanding, especially for the provision of a lower complete denture. Clinical research suggests that there is a higher quality of life for patients with implant-supported mandibular dentures (ISMDs) compared to patients with conventional dentures.1 Such clinical findings formed the basis of the McGill consensus statement on overdentures which was published following a symposium at McGill University in 2002. The consensus stated that restoration of the edentulous mandible with conventional complete dentures is no longer the most appropriate first choice treatment. There is now overwhelming evidence that a two-implant retained overdenture should become the first choice of treatment for the edentulous mandible.2
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
