Switch to Dark theme

References

Feine JS, Carlsson GE, Awad MA The McGill consensus statement on overdentures. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. May 24–25, 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; 207:185-186 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.728
Thomason JM, Kelly SA, 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.08.017
Gallucci GO. Guidelines for selecting the appropriate loading protocol. In: Wismeijer D, Buser D, Belser U (eds). Batavia, IL: Quintessence; 2010
Slot W, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A A systematic review of implant-supported maxillary overdentures after a mean observation period of at least 1 year. J Clin Periodontol. 2010; 37:98-110 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01493.x
Ohkubo C, Baek KW. Does the presence of antagonist remaining teeth affect implant overdenture success? A systematic review. J Oral Rehabil. 2010; 37:306-312 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02054.x
Sanna A, Nuytens P, Naert I, Quirynen M. Successful outcome of splinted implants supporting a ‘planned’ maxillary overdenture: a retrospective evaluation and comparison with fixed full dental prostheses. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20:406-413 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01664.x
Andreiotelli M, Att W, Strub JR. Prosthodontic complications with implant overdentures: a systematic literature review. Int J Prosthodont. 2010; 23:195-203
Naert I, Alsaadi G, Quirynen M. Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with two-implant-retained mandibular overdentures: a 10-year randomized clinical study. Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17:401-410
Zou D, Wu Y, Huang W A 3-year prospective clinical study of telescopic crown, bar, and locator attachments for removable four implant-supported maxillary overdentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2013; 26:566-573 https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.3485
Lobbezoo F, Ahlberg J, Glaros AG Bruxism defined and graded: an international consensus. J Oral Rehabil. 2013; 40:2-4 https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12011
Bader G, Lavigne G. Sleep bruxism; an overview of an oromandibular sleep movement disorder. Sleep Med Rev. 2000; 4:27-43 https://doi.org/10.1053/smrv.1999.0070
Lobbezoo F, Naeije M. Bruxism is mainly regulated centrally, not peripherally. J Oral Rehabil. 2001; 28:1085-1091 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00839.x
Dao TT, Lavigne GJ. Oral splints: the crutches for temporomandibular disorders and bruxism?. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1998; 9:345-361 https://doi.org/10.1177/10454411980090030701
Okeson JP. The effects of hard and soft occlusal splints on nocturnal bruxism. J Am Dent Assoc. 1987; 114:788-791 https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1987.0165
Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005; 16:26-35 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01067.x
Rilo B, da Silva JL, Mora MJ, Santana U. Guidelines for occlusion strategy in implant-borne prostheses. A review. Int Dent J. 2008; 58:139-145 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1875-595x.2008.tb00189.x
Dhanasekar B, Aparna IN, Mall N, Garg A. Occlusion in implant dentistry – issues and considerations. J Oral Health Community Dent. 2012; 6:91-96 https://doi.org/10.5005/JOHCD-6-2-91
Hsu YT, Fu JH, Al-Hezaimi K, Wang HL. Biomechanical implant treatment complications: a systematic review of clinical studies of implants with at least 1 year of functional loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012; 27:894-904
Misch CE. The effect of bruxism on treatment planning for dental implants. Dent Today. 2002; 21:76-81

Can implant-retained overdenture components cause damage to the opposing natural dentition?

From Volume 48, Issue 7, July 2021 | Pages 571-578

Authors

Nahal Razaghi

BDS (Hons), MJDF RCS (Eng), PG Dip (Dis)

StR in Restorative Dentistry, Royal London Dental Hospital, Barts Health Trust, London

Articles by Nahal Razaghi

Email Nahal Razaghi

Mike Hughes

BDS, MFDS RCS (Eng)

PG Cert Endodontics, Dip Rest Dent RCS (Eng), MSc, FFGDP (UK), ITI Fellow (UK), Lead Clinician and Clinical Director, Deintyddfa Na-Nóg Dental and Implant Team, Parc Menai, Bangor, Wales

Articles by Mike Hughes

Mital Patel

BDS, BSc(Hons), MFDS RCS(Eng), MSc, FDS (Rest Dent), RCS(Eng), FDS RCS (Ed)

Specialist Registrar in Restorative Dentistry, Leeds Dental Institute, Barnet and Chase Farm NHS Trust, Enfield EN2 8JL, UK

Articles by Mital Patel

Abstract

This clinical case series highlights an under-reported and often unidentified complication of implant-retained overdentures that may leave patients with a risk of long-term discomfort and preventable damage to the opposing dentition. A variety of cases is discussed to demonstrate potential problems and symptoms that can flag up signs of parafunctional habits in implant patients, and how these can be managed successfully.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: Implant-retained overdentures provide a significant improvement in quality of life; however, careful patient assessment and management is essential to ensure the components do not cause damage to the opposing dentition.

Article

When a patient presents for rehabilitation of an edentulous arch, the prosthodontic options are a complete tissue-supported removable denture, an implant-retained overdenture or an implant-retained fixed prosthesis.

The McGill Consensus 2002 concluded that first-choice treatment for the edentulous mandible was an overdenture retained by two implants.1 In 2009, the York statement, based on randomized controlled trials, stated that ‘patients’ satisfaction and quality of life with implant supported mandibular over-dentures are significantly greater than for conventional dentures’.2,3

There is less guidance and evidence available for implant-retained overdentures in the maxilla. According to the International Team for Implantology (ITI),4 conventionally loaded maxillary overdentures are well documented with four to six implants. In a systematic review on maxillary overdenture systems,5 the most successful was six implants splinted together with a bar with a survival rate of 98.2%, followed by 96.3% with four implants and a bar, and 95.2% in cases of four implants with a ball anchorage system for a period of at least 1 year. Six dental implants in the edentulous maxilla connected with a bar have also been shown to provide a proper base for the support of an overdenture opposed by mandibular teeth.6 Sanna et al reported a cumulative survival rate of 99.3% over 10 years of maxillary four to six interconnected implant-supported overdentures.7 There was no detail, however, on the positions of the implants in the studies.

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:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available

Already have an account? Sign in here