Background: The effects of fiber-reinforced acrylic base liner on peri-implant structures in early loading implant-supported overdenture are not thoroughly investigated. Hence, the aim to this study was to evaluate the effect of fiber-reinforced acrylic denture base resin liner on clinical and radiographic parameters in early loading implant supported overdentures.
Materials and methods: Fifteen edentulous male patients, aged 50–60 years were randomly (lottery method) classified into two groups: group I (controls, n = 5) having 4 ball and socket implants without resilient liner, group II (study group, n = 10) having ball and socket attachments with resilient liner. Group II was further divided into two subgroups: subgroup A (n = 5) having 2 ball and socket implants with resilient liner and subgroup B (n = 5) having 3 ball and socket implants with resilient liner. Implant mobility, implant survival, sulcular depth around the implant and bone height were evaluated every 3 months for 1 year. General linear models were used to test the difference in the mean crevicular depth and mean bone height (ratio) around implants in both groups during the follow-up periods. Statistical significance was determined at α = 0.05.
Results: No mobility was reported and the implant survival was 100%. There was an increase in the mean crevicular depth around implants in both groups at different time intervals. The increase was higher in group II (p < 0.05). There was a decrease in the mean bone height around the implants in both groups at different time intervals; however, this difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: Furthermore, the number of implants had no significant role in the success or failure of the implant-supported overdentures.
Freilich MA, Duncan JP, Alarcon EK, et al. The design and fabrication of fiber-reinforced implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88(4):449–454. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.128173.
Van Ripen FM, Vander Bill A, Cane MS, et al. Masticatory function with implant-supported overdentures. J Dent Res 2004;83(9):708–711. DOI: 10.1177/154405910408300910.
Elsyad MA, Shoukouki AH. Resilient liner vs. clip attachment effect on peri-implant tissues of bar-implant retained mandibular overdenture: a 1-year clinical and radiographical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21(5):473–480. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01879.x.
Kiat-Amnuay S, Khan Z, Gettleman L. Overdenture retention of four resilient liners over an implant bar. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81(5):568–573. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70211-8.
Adrian ED, Krantz WA, Ivanhoe JR. The use of processed silicone to retain the implant-supported tissue-borne overdenture. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67(2):219–222. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90457-l.
Small IA. The mandibular staple bone plate. Its use and advantages in reconstructive surgery. Dent Clin North Am 1986;30(2):175–187.
Halton JE, Heath MR, Chaij Y, et al. Factors related to success and failure rates at 3-year follow up in multicenter study of overdentures supported by Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;10(1):33–47.
Smith RA, Berger R, Dodson TB. Risk factors associated with dental implants in healthy and medically compromised patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7(3):367–372.
Jacobs R, Schotte A, Van Steenberghe D, et al. Posterior jaw bone resorption in osseointegrated implant-supported overdentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3(2):63–70. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1992.030203.x.
Haas R, Haimböck W, Mailath G, et al. The relationship of smoking on peri-implant tissue: a retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76(6):592–596. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90435-7.
Roberts E, Smith RK, Ziberinan Y. Osseous adaptation to continous loading of rigid endosseous implants. Am J Orthrd 1984;86(2):95–111. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90301-4.
Shue L, Miron RJ, Yufeng Z. Review of implant support for the distal extension removable partial dentures. JSM Dent Surg 2016;1(1):1007.
Rungcharassaeng K, Lozada JL, Kan JY, et al. Peri-implant tissue response of immediately loaded, threaded, HA-coated implants: 1-year results. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(2):173–181. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.121111.
Nissan J. Implant-supported overdentures: benefits and risks. In: Oral Rehabilitation for Compromised and Elderly Patients. Cham: Springer; 2019. pp. 183–191.
Awad MA, Lund JP, Dufresne E, et al. Comparing the efficacy of mandibular implantretained overdentures and conventional dentures among middle–aged edentulous patients: satisfaction and functional assessment. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16(2):117–122.
Bergendal T, Engquist B. Implant-supported overdentures: a longitudinal prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1998;13(2):253–262.
Burns DR. Mandibular implant overdenture treatment: consensus and controversy. J Prosthodont 2000;9(1):37–46. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2000.00037.x.
Ettinger RL, Qian F. Abutment tooth loss in patients with overdentures. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135(6):739–746. quiz 795–796. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0300.
Thomason JM, Feine J, Exley C, et al. Mandibular two implant-supported overdentures as the first choice standard of care for edentulous patients-the York Consensus Statement. Br Dent J 2009;207(4):185. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2009.728.
Fueki K, Kimoto K, Ogawa T, et al. Effect of implant supported or retained dentures on masticatory performance: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98(6):470–477. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60147-4.
Bakke M, Holm B, Gotfredsen K, et al. Masticatory function and patient satisfaction with implant-supported mandibular overdentures: a prospective 5-year study. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15(6):575–581.
Chung KH, Chung CY, Cagna DR, et al. Retention characteristics of attachment systems for implant overdentures. J Prosthodont 2004;13(4):221–226. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2004.04042.x.