Cargando…
Marginal Bone Loss around Implant-Retaining Overdentures versus Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses 12-Month Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study
Few studies have compared marginal bone loss (MBL) around implant-retaining overdentures (IODs) vs. implant-supported fixed prostheses (FPs). This study evaluated the mean MBL and radiographic bone-implant interface contact (r-BIIC) around IODs and implant-supported FPs. We also investigated osseoin...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8835213/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35162773 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031750 |
_version_ | 1784649374100357120 |
---|---|
author | Dorj, Odontuya Lin, Chin-Kai Salamanca, Eisner Pan, Yu-Hwa Wu, Yi-Fan Hsu, Yung-Szu Lin, Jerry C.-Y. Lin, Hsi-Kuei Chang, Wei-Jen |
author_facet | Dorj, Odontuya Lin, Chin-Kai Salamanca, Eisner Pan, Yu-Hwa Wu, Yi-Fan Hsu, Yung-Szu Lin, Jerry C.-Y. Lin, Hsi-Kuei Chang, Wei-Jen |
author_sort | Dorj, Odontuya |
collection | PubMed |
description | Few studies have compared marginal bone loss (MBL) around implant-retaining overdentures (IODs) vs. implant-supported fixed prostheses (FPs). This study evaluated the mean MBL and radiographic bone-implant interface contact (r-BIIC) around IODs and implant-supported FPs. We also investigated osseointegration and MBL around non-submerged dental implants. We measured the changes between the MBL in the mesial and distal sites immediately after prosthetic delivery and after one year. The mean MBL and its changes in the IOD group were significantly higher. The mean percentage of r-BIIC was significantly higher in the FP group. MBL and its changes in males were significantly higher in the IOD group. The percentage of r-BIIC was significantly higher in the FP group. MBL in the lower site in the IOD group was significantly higher. Regarding MBL, the location of the implant was the only significant factor in the IOD group, while gender was the only significant predictor in the FP group. Regarding the r-BIIC percentage, gender was a significant factor in the FP group. We concluded that non-submerged dental implants restored with FPs and IODs maintained stable bone remodeling one year after prosthetic delivery. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8835213 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88352132022-02-12 Marginal Bone Loss around Implant-Retaining Overdentures versus Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses 12-Month Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study Dorj, Odontuya Lin, Chin-Kai Salamanca, Eisner Pan, Yu-Hwa Wu, Yi-Fan Hsu, Yung-Szu Lin, Jerry C.-Y. Lin, Hsi-Kuei Chang, Wei-Jen Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Few studies have compared marginal bone loss (MBL) around implant-retaining overdentures (IODs) vs. implant-supported fixed prostheses (FPs). This study evaluated the mean MBL and radiographic bone-implant interface contact (r-BIIC) around IODs and implant-supported FPs. We also investigated osseointegration and MBL around non-submerged dental implants. We measured the changes between the MBL in the mesial and distal sites immediately after prosthetic delivery and after one year. The mean MBL and its changes in the IOD group were significantly higher. The mean percentage of r-BIIC was significantly higher in the FP group. MBL and its changes in males were significantly higher in the IOD group. The percentage of r-BIIC was significantly higher in the FP group. MBL in the lower site in the IOD group was significantly higher. Regarding MBL, the location of the implant was the only significant factor in the IOD group, while gender was the only significant predictor in the FP group. Regarding the r-BIIC percentage, gender was a significant factor in the FP group. We concluded that non-submerged dental implants restored with FPs and IODs maintained stable bone remodeling one year after prosthetic delivery. MDPI 2022-02-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8835213/ /pubmed/35162773 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031750 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Dorj, Odontuya Lin, Chin-Kai Salamanca, Eisner Pan, Yu-Hwa Wu, Yi-Fan Hsu, Yung-Szu Lin, Jerry C.-Y. Lin, Hsi-Kuei Chang, Wei-Jen Marginal Bone Loss around Implant-Retaining Overdentures versus Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses 12-Month Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study |
title | Marginal Bone Loss around Implant-Retaining Overdentures versus Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses 12-Month Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study |
title_full | Marginal Bone Loss around Implant-Retaining Overdentures versus Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses 12-Month Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study |
title_fullStr | Marginal Bone Loss around Implant-Retaining Overdentures versus Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses 12-Month Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Marginal Bone Loss around Implant-Retaining Overdentures versus Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses 12-Month Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study |
title_short | Marginal Bone Loss around Implant-Retaining Overdentures versus Implant-Supported Fixed Prostheses 12-Month Follow-Up: A Retrospective Study |
title_sort | marginal bone loss around implant-retaining overdentures versus implant-supported fixed prostheses 12-month follow-up: a retrospective study |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8835213/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35162773 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031750 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dorjodontuya marginalbonelossaroundimplantretainingoverdenturesversusimplantsupportedfixedprostheses12monthfollowuparetrospectivestudy AT linchinkai marginalbonelossaroundimplantretainingoverdenturesversusimplantsupportedfixedprostheses12monthfollowuparetrospectivestudy AT salamancaeisner marginalbonelossaroundimplantretainingoverdenturesversusimplantsupportedfixedprostheses12monthfollowuparetrospectivestudy AT panyuhwa marginalbonelossaroundimplantretainingoverdenturesversusimplantsupportedfixedprostheses12monthfollowuparetrospectivestudy AT wuyifan marginalbonelossaroundimplantretainingoverdenturesversusimplantsupportedfixedprostheses12monthfollowuparetrospectivestudy AT hsuyungszu marginalbonelossaroundimplantretainingoverdenturesversusimplantsupportedfixedprostheses12monthfollowuparetrospectivestudy AT linjerrycy marginalbonelossaroundimplantretainingoverdenturesversusimplantsupportedfixedprostheses12monthfollowuparetrospectivestudy AT linhsikuei marginalbonelossaroundimplantretainingoverdenturesversusimplantsupportedfixedprostheses12monthfollowuparetrospectivestudy AT changweijen marginalbonelossaroundimplantretainingoverdenturesversusimplantsupportedfixedprostheses12monthfollowuparetrospectivestudy |