Cargando…

Immediate versus Delayed Attachment Incorporation Impact on Prosthetic Aftercare among Mandibular Implant—Supported Overdenture Wearers

Background: Substantial effort is dedicated to finding the most favorable parameters that will ensure low aftercare demands among edentulous patients wearing mandibular implant supported overdentures (MISODs). The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare prosthetic aftercare between...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zenziper, Eran, Rosner, Ofir, Ghelfan, Oded, Nissan, Joseph, Blumer, Sigalit, Ben-Izhack, Gil, Davidovich, Moshe, Chaushu, Liat, Kahn, Adrian, Naishlos, Sarit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9224628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35743594
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123524
_version_ 1784733414863142912
author Zenziper, Eran
Rosner, Ofir
Ghelfan, Oded
Nissan, Joseph
Blumer, Sigalit
Ben-Izhack, Gil
Davidovich, Moshe
Chaushu, Liat
Kahn, Adrian
Naishlos, Sarit
author_facet Zenziper, Eran
Rosner, Ofir
Ghelfan, Oded
Nissan, Joseph
Blumer, Sigalit
Ben-Izhack, Gil
Davidovich, Moshe
Chaushu, Liat
Kahn, Adrian
Naishlos, Sarit
author_sort Zenziper, Eran
collection PubMed
description Background: Substantial effort is dedicated to finding the most favorable parameters that will ensure low aftercare demands among edentulous patients wearing mandibular implant supported overdentures (MISODs). The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare prosthetic aftercare between MISOD patients with a simultaneous (group A) vs. a three-week settling in period (group B) prior to attachment incorporation. Methods: Forty-five patients enrolled in this study. Two implants per patient were placed using a two-stage implant insertion protocol. Second-stage surgery was performed after three months. All patients received ball attachments using the direct (chairside) incorporation method. Twenty-two patients received their dentures with simultaneous attachment activation and the rest—twenty-three patients—after a three-week settling in period. Patients’ files were scanned for aftercare visits. Outcome parameters included sore spot relief, attachment incorporation, and denture repair. Additionally, gingival index measurements were compared. Confounding factors included age, gender, and implant dimensions. Results: The mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 84 ± 21 months, and the range 39–120 months. The mean number of visits for group A vs. B respectively: pressure sores relieve (3.63 ± 0.84 vs. 3.71 ± 0.61, p = 0.581), liner exchange due to loss of retention (2.09 ± 1.03 vs. 2.31 ± 1.04 p = 0.487), and gingival index (1.3 ± 0.3 vs. 1.03 ± 0.2, p = 0.653) exhibited no statistically significant differences between the tested groups. No statistically significant differences between the groups were also noted for the denture repair aftercare treatments (p = 0.318) and the independent variables including age, gender, and implant length. Conclusions: Prosthetic aftercare in MISOD wearers is similar whether a simultaneous or a three-week settling in period for attachment incorporation is applied.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9224628
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92246282022-06-24 Immediate versus Delayed Attachment Incorporation Impact on Prosthetic Aftercare among Mandibular Implant—Supported Overdenture Wearers Zenziper, Eran Rosner, Ofir Ghelfan, Oded Nissan, Joseph Blumer, Sigalit Ben-Izhack, Gil Davidovich, Moshe Chaushu, Liat Kahn, Adrian Naishlos, Sarit J Clin Med Article Background: Substantial effort is dedicated to finding the most favorable parameters that will ensure low aftercare demands among edentulous patients wearing mandibular implant supported overdentures (MISODs). The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare prosthetic aftercare between MISOD patients with a simultaneous (group A) vs. a three-week settling in period (group B) prior to attachment incorporation. Methods: Forty-five patients enrolled in this study. Two implants per patient were placed using a two-stage implant insertion protocol. Second-stage surgery was performed after three months. All patients received ball attachments using the direct (chairside) incorporation method. Twenty-two patients received their dentures with simultaneous attachment activation and the rest—twenty-three patients—after a three-week settling in period. Patients’ files were scanned for aftercare visits. Outcome parameters included sore spot relief, attachment incorporation, and denture repair. Additionally, gingival index measurements were compared. Confounding factors included age, gender, and implant dimensions. Results: The mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 84 ± 21 months, and the range 39–120 months. The mean number of visits for group A vs. B respectively: pressure sores relieve (3.63 ± 0.84 vs. 3.71 ± 0.61, p = 0.581), liner exchange due to loss of retention (2.09 ± 1.03 vs. 2.31 ± 1.04 p = 0.487), and gingival index (1.3 ± 0.3 vs. 1.03 ± 0.2, p = 0.653) exhibited no statistically significant differences between the tested groups. No statistically significant differences between the groups were also noted for the denture repair aftercare treatments (p = 0.318) and the independent variables including age, gender, and implant length. Conclusions: Prosthetic aftercare in MISOD wearers is similar whether a simultaneous or a three-week settling in period for attachment incorporation is applied. MDPI 2022-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9224628/ /pubmed/35743594 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123524 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
Zenziper, Eran
Rosner, Ofir
Ghelfan, Oded
Nissan, Joseph
Blumer, Sigalit
Ben-Izhack, Gil
Davidovich, Moshe
Chaushu, Liat
Kahn, Adrian
Naishlos, Sarit
Immediate versus Delayed Attachment Incorporation Impact on Prosthetic Aftercare among Mandibular Implant—Supported Overdenture Wearers
title Immediate versus Delayed Attachment Incorporation Impact on Prosthetic Aftercare among Mandibular Implant—Supported Overdenture Wearers
title_full Immediate versus Delayed Attachment Incorporation Impact on Prosthetic Aftercare among Mandibular Implant—Supported Overdenture Wearers
title_fullStr Immediate versus Delayed Attachment Incorporation Impact on Prosthetic Aftercare among Mandibular Implant—Supported Overdenture Wearers
title_full_unstemmed Immediate versus Delayed Attachment Incorporation Impact on Prosthetic Aftercare among Mandibular Implant—Supported Overdenture Wearers
title_short Immediate versus Delayed Attachment Incorporation Impact on Prosthetic Aftercare among Mandibular Implant—Supported Overdenture Wearers
title_sort immediate versus delayed attachment incorporation impact on prosthetic aftercare among mandibular implant—supported overdenture wearers
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9224628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35743594
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123524
work_keys_str_mv AT zenzipereran immediateversusdelayedattachmentincorporationimpactonprostheticaftercareamongmandibularimplantsupportedoverdenturewearers
AT rosnerofir immediateversusdelayedattachmentincorporationimpactonprostheticaftercareamongmandibularimplantsupportedoverdenturewearers
AT ghelfanoded immediateversusdelayedattachmentincorporationimpactonprostheticaftercareamongmandibularimplantsupportedoverdenturewearers
AT nissanjoseph immediateversusdelayedattachmentincorporationimpactonprostheticaftercareamongmandibularimplantsupportedoverdenturewearers
AT blumersigalit immediateversusdelayedattachmentincorporationimpactonprostheticaftercareamongmandibularimplantsupportedoverdenturewearers
AT benizhackgil immediateversusdelayedattachmentincorporationimpactonprostheticaftercareamongmandibularimplantsupportedoverdenturewearers
AT davidovichmoshe immediateversusdelayedattachmentincorporationimpactonprostheticaftercareamongmandibularimplantsupportedoverdenturewearers
AT chaushuliat immediateversusdelayedattachmentincorporationimpactonprostheticaftercareamongmandibularimplantsupportedoverdenturewearers
AT kahnadrian immediateversusdelayedattachmentincorporationimpactonprostheticaftercareamongmandibularimplantsupportedoverdenturewearers
AT naishlossarit immediateversusdelayedattachmentincorporationimpactonprostheticaftercareamongmandibularimplantsupportedoverdenturewearers