Comparative Efficiency of Removable Mini-Implant Retained Dentures Using Different Attachments in Edentulous Patients

Aim. To compare the efficiency of removable mini-implant retained dentures using different types of attachment.

Materials and methods. The study included 51 edentulous patients. The patients were divided into three groups according to the attachment type and abutment shape: 1) ball-and-socket attachment, ball abutment (n = 26); 2) locator attachment, equator abutment, XiVE LOCATOR system (n = 14); 3) bar attachment (n = 11). Removable dentures were made of ordinary acrylic plastic. The placement of intraosseous dental implants with their sublingual engraftment was performed according to the traditional two-stage delayed-load procedure. The efficiency of implants was evaluated using the method of M.Z. Mirgazizov and the eponymous index. The dynamics of vertical bone resorption around implants was determined using dental panoramic radiography (6 months, 1 and 2 years after the treatment). A periotest was performed 6 months after the end of the orthopaedic treatment.

Results. The one-year survival rate of implants reached 96.2% in group 1, amounting to 100% in groups 2 and 3. The two-year survival rate came to 92.3% in group 1, reaching 92.9% and 100% in groups 2 and 3, respectively. Inflammatory phenomena characteristic of peri-implantitis were noted one year after the implant placement in 7.7% (n = 2) of patients in group 1 and in 7.1% of patients in group 2, with no inflammatory phenomena being observed in group 3. Two years after the implant placement, peri-implantitis was observed in 19.2% and 21.4% of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively, coming to 9.1% in group 3. The periotest revealed that six months after the placement, implant stability was higher in group 3 for both the lower and upper jaw (in comparison with groups 1 and 2), as evidenced by the shift in periotest values towards the negative part of the scale.

Conclusion. The study revealed that bar attachment, as well as locator attachment (equator abutments), of removable dentures supported by mini implants is more efficient as compared to the ball-and-socket attachment.

1. Albaker A.M. The oral health-related quality of life in edentulous patients treated with conventional complete dentures. Gerodontology. 2013; 30(1): 61–66. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-2358.2012.00645.x

2. Bonnet G., Batisse C., Segyo J.W., Veyrune J.L., Nicolas E., Bessadet M. Infl uence of the renewal of removable dentures on oral health related quality of life. Springerplus. 2016; 5(1): 2019. DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-3699-7

3. Rostom D.A., Al-Fahd A. Mini dentalimplantoverdenture as an alternative treatment (systematicreview). Int. Dent. Med. J. Adv. Res. 2017; 3: 1–6. DOI: 10.15713/ins.idmjar.78

4. Sohrabi K., Mushantat A., Esfandiari S., Feine J. How successful are small-diameter implants? A literature review. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 2012; 23(5): 515–525. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02410.x

5. Preoteasa E., Imre M., Preoteasa C.T. A 3-year follow-up study of overdentures retained by mini-dental implants. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 2014; 29(5): 1170–1176. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3222

6. Jofré J., Conrady Y., Carrasco C. Survival of splinted mini-implants afer contamination with stainless steel. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 2010; 25(2): 351–356.

7. Elsyad M.A. Prosthetic aspects and patient satisfaction with resilient liner and clip attach-ments for barand implant-retained mandibular overdentures: A 3-year randomizedclinical study. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2012; 25(2): 148–156.

8. Flanagan D., Mascolo A. The mini dental implant in fixed and removable prosthetics: A review. J. Oral. Implantol. 2011; 37 Spec No: 123–132. DOI: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00052.1

9. Temizel S., Heinemann F., Dirk C., Bourauel C., Hasan I. Clinical and radiological investigations of mandibular overdenturessupported by conventional or mini-dental implants: A 2-yearprospective follow-up study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2017; 117(2): 239–246.e2. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.022

10. Merlin T., Weston A., Tooher R. Extending an evidence hierarchy to include topics other than treatment: revising the Australian ‘levels of evidence’. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2009; 9: 34. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-34

11. Shatkin T.E., Petrotto C.A. Mini dental implants: a retrospective analysis of 5640 implants placed over a 12-year period. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2012; 33 Spec 3:2–9.

12. Smirnova L.E., Filimonova L.B. Zakonodatel’noe i normativnoe pravovoe obespechenie provedeniya dental’noi implantatsii [Legislative and regulatory framework for dental implantation]. Stomatologiya. 2016; 95(6-2): 129–130 (In Russ.).

13. Shagibalov R.R., Utyuzh A.S., Lushkov R.M. Periotestometry as a criterion for choosing the method of immediate prosthetics on dental implants. Institut Stomatologii. 2019; 2(83): 78–79 (In Russ., English abstract).

14. de Souza R.F., Ribeiro A.B., Vecchia M.P., Costa L., Cunha T.R., Reis A.C. Mini vs. Standard implants for mandibular overdentures: A randomized trial. J. Dent. Res. 2015; 94(10): 1376–1384. DOI: 10.1177/0022034515601959

15. Ribeiro A.B., Vecchia M.P., Cunha T.R., Sorgini D.B., Dos Reis A.C., Muglia V.A., de Albuquerque R.F. Jr., de Souza R.F. Short-term post-operative pain and discomfort following insertion of mini-implants for retaining mandibular overdentures: a randomized controlled trial. J. Oral. Rehabil. 2015; 42(8): 605–614. DOI: 10.1111/joor.12287

16. Beyari M.M. Comparative study between two types of implants supporting mandibular overdenture. Int. J. Surg. Res. 2015; 4(2): 15–18. DOI: 10.5923/j.surgery.20150402.02